[htk]

I personally believe that driver's compensation is a valid discussion, but defrauding the system is not the way to do it. Uber/Lyft should just carefully identify and ban the cheaters and the lesson should spread as efficiently as the planning to cheat.

[eropple]

They're not cheating. They're on-demand service providers providing services on-demand to on-demand consumers and they're acting according to the spirit of their agreement with Lyft and Uber--"I don't want to drive for less than $X, so I won't, and I'll wait for you to offer the money I do want."

So, with that more correct understanding of the world, your post amounts to this: "I believe that driver's compensation is a valid discussion, but only on the terms of the people holding capital and the majority of the power."

It's not a good take, dude.

[mikeash]

How is it fraud?

[bena]

I would imagine he sees it as fraud because these are drivers who are ready and willing to drive and are waiting on fares but are not indicated on the app as so.

So when someone uses the app to find out about nearby rides, it shows no one, then it ups the rate to try and lure further drivers. Or the few drivers that are on the app currently. Then when the price is "right", all the waiting cars turn on the app at once to get the "surge" price.

These people are exploiting the rules of the system to violate the spirit of the system. The more available cars, the lower the price.

The more people find out that drivers are doing this, the more likely some form of retaliation will follow.

Either users will just start using cabs again because the price is no different or they'll do something else. Like give default bad reviews to any airport trip that they suspect of manipulating surge pricing.

[eropple]

Drivers are not ready and willing to drive. They are ready and willing to drive for a higher rate. Lyft and Uber provide that higher rate when there is sufficient demand and insufficient supply. Working as designed, yo.

Multi-billion-dollar companies do not need you to cape up for them. Somehow, somehow, they will survive against those mendacious poor people who have found a way to represent their requirements to the company.

[bena]

Where did I say this was a good or bad thing? Nowhere.

I described things that could happen if the practice becomes too exploitative.

Also, I can see the argument that it violates the TOS for the drivers. The drivers agree to drive for the price determined by the service. They are then using exploits to manipulate that price.

If they don't want to drive for X fare, then they shouldn't be in their car.

And this is an incredibly complicated situation because there are at least three different principles involved. The driver, the company, and the passenger.

In some way, the passenger is being taken advantage of. The passenger _also_ has a contract with the company. And that part assumes that the price is determined fairly and not being manipulated by outside forces.

[eropple]

> Where did I say this was a good or bad thing? Nowhere.

You didn't. But nobody perturbs that many electrons if they don't have an opinion on the topic (and I'll be real, I've got one too but I'm not trying to cloak it in neutrality). And then we get this:

> In some way, the passenger is being taken advantage of.

This is nonsensical. It also proves out the hunch I expressed from my last post, so thank you for doing the legwork for me.

As to why it is nonsensical: the passenger is in no way being "taken advantage of", except insofar as Lyft and Uber already commit obvious fuckery on the regular. The prices are "being manipulated" all over the place--I get different prices on Uber than my girlfriend does when we're standing next to one another!--and there is no expectation that "outside forces" (oooooh) are somehow kept out of it.

The passenger is being given a price at which they will be transported. That's it. The driver is being given a rate at which they will do the transporting. That's it. If they both agree, the ride happens and Lyft/Uber take their cut. This is how a two-sided market maker is supposed to work.

I don't know why it would be okay for Uber and Lyft to fiddle-fart with prices but it's not okay for drivers to say "I won't drive for less than $X". Why are you choosing to shade, to preferentially "see the argument" against poor people when it means that they might make a little money using a market the way a market is supposed to work?

[bena]

> This is nonsensical. It also proves out the hunch I expressed from my last post, so thank you for doing the legwork for me.

How is it nonsensical? Is the end-consumer just supposed to sit and watch drivers and the company fight to see how much money they can extract from their wallet?

Stop trying to make outside forces seem like some sort of sinister scare tactic. It betrays _your_ bias.

The agreement is that Uber/Lyft set the prices based on the number of drivers in the area. It's ok by the very nature of the agreement both the drivers and the passengers agree to for using the app.

It's ok for the drivers to say "I won't drive for less than $X". What's not ok is saying "I'll sit here and not drive and force a surge so I can then take advantage of a situation I caused." If they weren't at the airport, that's one thing. But they sit at the airport and pretend to not be waiting for fares so they can force a surge. Then they turn on the app so they can both be readily available and get the surge.

Uber/Lyft get their cut either way. The people getting the brunt of the higher fares are the passengers. So dismissing them as a concerned party is only a tactic to defend the drivers.

Are the passengers also not part of the "poor people"?

[mikeash]

When these services first introduced surge pricing, they told us that it was a good thing because it encourages more drivers to get on the road and take care of demand. It’s working exactly as designed.

[bena]

The drivers are already there though. They've already committed to taking these passengers.

Imagine walking up to a taxi and having them say "wait 5 minutes until I can charge you more".