MarkHaversham wrote:Anyone who thinks the free market is a good thing (or even, a thing that exists) should always replace "prices" with "incomes" and see if their statement still makes complete sense to them.
Well, I certainly don't believe free markets exist, though I believe them to be largely a good thing in principle. And yes, to answer your hypothetical, my statement does make sense to me with your suggested substitution. Labor is a good priced like any other largely (though obviously not entirely) based on supply and demand. If your labor is essentially fungible (like driving a car) and there are low barriers to entry (and thus a potentially high supply) then yes, wages will be low. That's the market price for your labor and I don't believe in artificial price floors for goods.
I can't speak for Mark Haversham, but I'm reasonably confident in saying no one denies lower prices are a good thing. The worry is when wages fall along with them, especially in a City mired in poverty like St. Louis. This is even more troubling when that poverty is more-or-less drawn along racial lines into very neatly segregated swaths of the metro area thanks to decades of perverse, highly efficient socioeconomic engineering.
Based on all your other posts in this thread, I'm sure you're not troubled by this at all, and that those people negatively affected by this phenomenon "should just get better jobs or something," but the problem with that is it's not always so simple for that to happen, even if it seems straightforward to you.
The long history of racial injustice in this country is absolutely troubling to me, and I do strongly believe we should work to create opportunities for people that have not had the advantages that some of us have enjoyed as a result. I realize that its not so simple as "just get another job" and I'm fortunate to work in an industry where my labor happens to be in demand at the moment. I just think we likely disagree on how to create those opportunities. I don't think blocking UberX from operating and putting artificial barriers between people that want to work and jobs (even potentially crappy ones) is exactly striking a blow for social justice.
Can we stop with the idea that somehow Uber is going to exacerbate poverty further? That's a huge stretch. Not all cab drivers are poor minorities that live in run down areas of the City. And are there really that many cab drivers that will be doomed to a life of poverty because Uber pushes them out? I'd like to see the math before you make assumptions.
And do you see a lot of poor people in poor neighborhoods calling a cab to come pick them up? Poor people are already on an island. An island without better mass transit. Cabs are a service. And I would wager in comparison to most of us on the forum, cabs are a service poor people can't afford or would rather not spend their money on.
MarkHaversham wrote:Anyone who thinks the free market is a good thing (or even, a thing that exists) should always replace "prices" with "incomes" and see if their statement still makes complete sense to them.
Well, I certainly don't believe free markets exist, though I believe them to be largely a good thing in principle. And yes, to answer your hypothetical, my statement does make sense to me with your suggested substitution. Labor is a good priced like any other largely (though obviously not entirely) based on supply and demand. If your labor is essentially fungible (like driving a car) and there are low barriers to entry (and thus a potentially high supply) then yes, wages will be low. That's the market price for your labor and I don't believe in artificial price floors for goods.
I don't believe that no income should ever go down, but I certainly can observe that incomes going down can often be bad for society as a whole. After all, Wal-Mart lowed prices, but when you factor in tax incentives and welfare subsidies it isn't actually saving consumers much money in the long run. Not to mention that if you are going to ignore externalities, the entire concept of a city becomes somewhat nonsensical.
pat wrote:Can we stop with the idea that somehow Uber is going to exacerbate poverty further? That's a huge stretch. Not all cab drivers are poor minorities that live in run down areas of the City.
Uber drivers are much more likely to be white college kids, which adds a racial element to things.
As a recent college graduate who still lives at home in Chesterfield, I would love to see Uber in STL. The 60 dollar cab ride home from downtown makes it so much more tempting to drive drunk even when i know that's not a good idea. Plus anytime friends come into town they are shocked that we don't have Uber yet. Its just another little thing that added together with everything else makes STL a less attractive destination for people. (Also I'm all for free market principles prevailing, if you don't like what it does to your income then quit. No one is forcing you to work there.)
A recent college grad living with his parents in an upper-middle class suburb telling people to quit their jobs and reminding them "no one is forcing them to work there."
I couldn't better-encapsulate everything wrong with my generation in a single post here if I even tried.
KC UberX fare is $1.50 base + 18c/min + $1 per mile so roughly calculating a downtown to Chesterfield trip of approx. 30 minutes and 30 miles I get roughly $37.50 if the rates were similar. And if my maths are right.
cardinalstl wrote:As a recent college graduate who still lives at home in Chesterfield, I would love to see Uber in STL. The 60 dollar cab ride home from downtown makes it so much more tempting to drive drunk even when i know that's not a good idea. Plus anytime friends come into town they are shocked that we don't have Uber yet. Its just another little thing that added together with everything else makes STL a less attractive destination for people. (Also I'm all for free market principles prevailing, if you don't like what it does to your income then quit. No one is forcing you to work there.)
Trying not to derail the thread too far into macroeconomic analysis, but the drunk-driving argument is really a point in favor of a subsidized transportation option. Externalities are evidence against, not for, the suitability/existance of a free market.
downtown2007 wrote:What makes you think it won't cost 60 bucks through uber?
Research seems to show that Uber is typically cheaper than traditional cab fares. But, it's also subject to surge pricing, so I guess cheapness is not a guarantee.
Of course, if you don't want to spend money on cabs to Chesterfield whenever you want to do something fun, the real solution is to move downtown.
cardinalstl wrote:As a recent college graduate who still lives at home in Chesterfield, I would love to see Uber in STL. The 60 dollar cab ride home from downtown makes it so much more tempting to drive drunk even when i know that's not a good idea. Plus anytime friends come into town they are shocked that we don't have Uber yet. Its just another little thing that added together with everything else makes STL a less attractive destination for people. (Also I'm all for free market principles prevailing, if you don't like what it does to your income then quit. No one is forcing you to work there.)
Im on your side that the market should be allowed to play out here.
But you have to realize how out of touch you sound when you strung this paragraph together.
the number of cars purchased by people aged 18 to 34 fell by almost 30 percent from 2007 to 2011.
using recession data?
''Millennials are actually buying cars. In fact, according to Bloomberg, 27 percent of cars purchased in the US last year were bought by millennials, making them the second largest group of car buyers, right after boomers. In fact, now it’s the Gen Xers who hate cars, apparently. This all goes back to the crux of why millennials weren’t buying cars: Money. Specifically, the lack of it. See, if you don’t have money, you can’t use it to acquire goods and services. But now millennials are getting jobs, they’re making money, and they’re moving out to suburbs where they’ll need cars to get around.''
That reminds me, I'm surprised Lyft hasn't stepped in and offered to meet MTC requirements in an attempt to monopolize the Uber-less local ride-share market.
^ for better or worse, we're not going to have to worry about that for quite a while.... it isn't quite hyperloop fancy, but I don't see driverless cars on urban streets happening anytime soon. (sorry, gary!)
roger wyoming II wrote:^ for better or worse, we're not going to have to worry about that for quite a while.... it isn't quite hyperloop fancy, but I don't see driverless cars on urban streets happening anytime soon. (sorry, gary!)
I had no clue Ed Domain had experienced a severe car crash in St. Louis. I watch his videos often. Seems like a nice guy and I hope he continues to recovers well. Does Domain have a Go-Fund account?
In the meantime, he still needs to sue the sh*t out of Harris Cab. No insurance? WTH? It's time to either sell Harris's car cabs and/or turn them into scrap. Then sell all their operations, technology etc. including the building they operate out of.
There's no way I'd be accumulating debt, bad credit, pain and apathy and Harris Cab gets off scot-free. Someone would have to be checking into Larry Rice's shelter.
Overall, I think Domain's right.....St. Louis needs Uber and Lyft. Times are changing and it's just time for St. Louis, MTC and Missouri to catch up and get with the program. It's just one more issue which demonstrates how backwards St. Louis and Missouri can be about some things. This doesn't feel like "free-enterprise" at all. It's all about limiting competition.
I seriously wish someone or an astute/shrewd attorney could find an overlooked loophole in the law (and policies) that are preventing Uber and Lyft from operating.
