[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"?

[eropple]

> 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?

Who says the consumer has to take an Uber or a Lyft at all? They have exactly the same right as the driver to not take a ride. The demand curve is elastic; demand goes down as price goes up. Consumers are not locked into Uber or Lyft. Taxis exist. DCA is connected to two train lines.

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

Betrays? You get that I'm totally owning my bias, yes? And that I am not the one who is coloring driver action while ignoring Uber and Lyft's internal price fuckery?

Price fluctuations because Uber's internal model knows that I'll pay more for a ride than my girlfriend will are no more legitimate than this, and yet you just let those slide and focus, for some reason, on those "outside forces".

> 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.

So?

That is their only lever for expressing their willingness to work at a given price. If Uber and Lyft provided mechanisms for declaring price levels--"I am only willing to take rides at $X or more"--then this wouldn't happen. But that would reduce the cheap, high-volume rides that make Uber and Lyft their money, so of course they are uninterested in doing it. So drivers have their lever, and they are using it.

I'm gonna be real for a sec: what you're saying amounts to "they need to work for the rich people at the rich people's price because only rich people get to make decisions."

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

Compared to Uber and Lyft: sure! Compared to drivers: generally not; of course, there are exceptions...but probably relatively few exceptions leaving DCA via Uber or Lyft).

But they don't have to use Uber and Lyft to leave DCA. Consumers have other options that they can leverage. If nothing else, taxis are a nearly hard upper bound on pricing.