Obvious in hindsight. This sort of thing is inevitable any time you have dumb software on one side and humans on the other side.
I'm mostly a fan of these non-taxi "taxi" services, but it seems like they are slowly and painfully rediscovering why taxis ended up so regulated in the first place.
During a fare, an uber driver told me that when he goes to an area with lots of drivers, he will turn off his app for a minute or so to artificially decrease the number of drivers in the area. If this is practiced by multiple drivers repeatedly, the result can cause a surge. He told me that he does this, and, that he holds training sessions where he teaches this practice to other drivers, among other things. I do not know if this was actually effective or if it still is.
This is easy for Uber to fix. The surge (or the calculation of drivers) just needs to be delayed by 15mins or so. He can still turn off his app, but now he'll have to do it for more than 15mins, thus potentially losing 1 or 2 rides.
It would be pretty easy to build a service to coordinate this. (And of course Uber would whine about it even though that's exactly the kind of thing they do all the time)
Unless I'm mistaken it seems like surge pricing in one area would encourage drivers looking for rides to go there, which would then cause other surges in the previous areas they were in
People game the system. Always. Have learned that for years when it comes to safety systems.
Even uneducated people become very intelligent when it comes to gaming the system to their advantage. It is always a cat and rat game between technical adjustments and when people find a way to game the system again.
People learned the phone company would refund any Denied All Knowledge of a long distance call. Call up, get a credit.
Then phone company said you cant DAK calls 2 months in a row: so customers called in every other month.
Then, they eliminated operator handled calls for small bills. Call in, get an IVR, get a credit.
Phone company caught on and limited credits to $7 per month, every other month.
Customers started crediting <$7...
And on and in...cat and mouse.
Then, few realized you only had to pay 91% of the past due balance to not get shut off..
Others finally realized that if your account gets associated with a elected federal official or a PUC complaint you account will never get treated for collections.
---
Another simple one: having to press "0" 3 times to get to an agent on some IVRs..
The first guy to log back in (or the guy who doesn't log off at all) wins the game to the detriment of the others, limiting the extent of this practice.
You can't have a successful oligopoly when there's no barrier to entry.
The post seems to make clear that once the surge pricing becomes active more than on person can capture customers at that price level, meaning their earnings are likely higher by doing this.
Surge pricing - at least on Uber - is only re-evaluated at a fixed frequency. Which is to say even if the supply rushes in to fill the void there is still a certain amount of time before the surge is turned off.
I imagine multiple people (heck, many people) can win the game in this period.
It takes more than one ride dispatch to quell the surge. I've watched bar/club closings stay in surge for 30 minutes while cars stream in to pick up riders. I personally have given 5 surge rides in a row, albeit short rides, just by picking up at a particular hot spot, getting a local, drop them off, go offline, return to hot spot, wash, rinse, repeat.
That's not entirely true. In our market, there aren't many Uber drivers and it's easy to game the system.
A few weeks ago I took a ride with someone who was trying very hard not to "join the uber mafia". He said that most of the time he also has to turn off his phone, otherwise he gets screwed over.
The reason is that when there are no more drivers, he'll get matched with people on the other side of town. He doesn't get paid for the drive out, and sometimes people still cancel after waiting 20 minutes for an uber to show up after ordering. Even with surge pricing it didn't make financial sense, so he'll turn off his phone too or switch to Lyft during these periods.
Sounds like a nice little loophole the drivers found to make a few extra bucks. It's always interesting to me when people find little tricks they can do the bend an algo their direction.
This reminds me a lot of the LinkedIn algo hacks that's driving me nuts right now. If you post super long form, cheesy, generic paragraphs of text with no links/visuals - you get massive exposure. The result has been superficial posts filling up my feed talking about who knows what.
Much like the nuisance of a pricing surge on Uber, these algo hacks can be a real pain.
"Separate research at Northeastern University has previously found passengers can game surge pricing with simple tricks such as waiting five minutes or crossing the road."
I know I've waited out twenty minutes or so to bypass the surge or at least dampen the surge to a rate I was comfortable with. Sort of becomes an auction experience at that point.
I am currently talking with Warren Mosler about implementing Unconditional Basic Income in local communities (Hi @sama! :)
Cartels is the main danger with unconditional basic income. If you make sure everyone can eat, you create a moral hazard, where the insured are not sensitive to price anymore. Having said that, we already have means-tested welfare and food stamps, and cartels of fruit stores don't spontaneously appear everywhere. However, they may appear in food deserts and other places where there aren't a lot of participants. Competition is the only factor I can think of to combat this. But in some areas with few participants, this collusion can ultimately happen.
Does anyone here have constructive thoughts on how to overcome this problem? Price controls and collective bargaining via single payer is all I can think of besides competition.
Competition in this case is really a proxy for choice. UBI should rationally be about promoting the ability for consumers to choose how to spend money, rather than being constrained to have no choices due to lack of resource. to solve the problem you are describing, people still need to have the self-interest to make good decisions, and the willingness to carry them out.
If consumers won't shop around, or make price sensitive decisions, then the market for the good in question becomes price insensitive. But, I think UBI is attractive primarily because it doesn't seek to tell people how to spend their money, or tell them what the right choices are. As an alternative to welfare, it should allow consumer preferences to play a greater part in the market.
My go-to example (of the dangers of cartels extracting the added UBI) is the time they bought out a bridge to remove the tolls and then landlords raised rents by the exact cost of twice-daily crossings. (Of course, I've never researched the purported event itself.)
Any UBI plan needs to come with a firm understanding of this dynamic and how to prevent it.
I remember dealing with the emergency IT issues that popped up with our NYC offices after hurricane Sandy wrought havoc upon much of lower Manhattan's power grid. We were lights out for at least three days. Had to take lots of taxis to move hardware to places with electricity. Even if we wanted to be creative, the subway was certainly not a transportation option and foot was wight prohibitive. The pickup rules for taxi's were suspended during this emergency period. Taxis could pickup fares mid-ride, turn down any rider going to a undesirable destination, & charge whatever they thought they could get. Lucky for me, despite all other storm-born chaos, I was in a sweet spot for where taxis were more than happy to drive. Even so, seeing the number of people who were turned down for their destinations or who in turn declined a ride because of the driver chosen price hike was fascinating; a sort of real-time, impromptu emergent market in infancy rapidly growing into maturity.
So not to say that these ride share services have moved to remove all these kinds of consumer protections that clearly were quickly dropped and exploited once they were removed due to the state of emergency but to a large extent, I feel like I had the chance to experience the larger forces of gamification that would happen if these protections were removed and circumstances were ripe for profit. Overall I am very happy with the changes ride sharing services have brought to supplement transportation options but there are certainly a lot more of these bumps and kinks to be worked out if these businesses hope to avoid a wave of government regulation.
This. As soon as you have an adversarial relationship between buyer/seller (of any good, not just labor) all the bad behaviors come out.
A prime example of this is the airlines. Southwest and Virgin have somehow convinced staff and passengers to be polite to each other, so boarding and other things go smoothly. The same flight for the same price on United or American is a mess of elbowing and passive agressiveness.
A simple solution to this would be to simply limit the number of times one can log in and out per day to something reasonable, or to place limits on the frequency etc.
If you ask Uber drivers if they enjoy it, the #1 thing you'll hear is "it's flexible." They're willing to put up with all the other bullshit -- the low pay, the lack of benefits -- for the feeling of control. Chip away at that and bad things will happen.
How is this unethical? This is the exact point of these marketplaces - The drivers are saying "I won't accept a fare at these levels", Uber is responding by raising the price (and it's pretty transparent to consumers - The whole point of "surge pricing" is to incentivize drivers that would otherwise not be on the road). The multiplier framework is pretty clear upfront when you're paying more.
This sounds like a fix to one of my major complaints about Uber. The prices are too low. I like cheap rides, but I also like knowing that the people who are giving me rides (and providing me services, selling me goods, making those goods, etc) are making living wages.
And, to some level - This is collective bargaining. This is precisely what Unionists want, without all of the mess involved in actual unions. The drivers are collectively demanding higher wages, and Uber is responding.
On the other hand: There's a good reason we're seeing this pushback. Uber is a shitty, predatory company, and has relentlessly worked to drive down driver wages well beyond sustainable rates. (It's also a shitty company to it's full time employees, to which I will attest.)
Yup. Last week I left a Dodgers game in about the eighth inning, and there was a huge parking lot full of Ubers and tons of people were standing around waiting but couldn't find drivers. The drivers wait until the game ends and the masses exit so that the real surge pricing kicks in.
Surge pricing is technologically archaic, and really has been since the start. Uber should be running instant automated auctions like stock market and webads do.
I use Uber pass fairly regular on my commute to work. One other minor unrelated thing I have seen is if the commute is within < 1-2 miles the drive ends up giving you a bad rating (not that ratings matter to me) but uber has no way to screen this fake rating. I made sure I was at the pick up point well before the car arrived, and minded my own business throughout the ride.
On talking to couple of drivers on a few occasions they confessed that they do this to filter out folks asking for lower mile rides!!
edit: This is obviously not in high uber/lyft density zone like a downtown SF where one can assume most of the rides endup being in the 2 mile radius.
I suspect this happens in London. I always take a "Gett" (fixed price black cab) if so, and it's usually the same price / cheaper and they know how to drive.
[+] [-] mikeash|8 years ago|reply
I'm mostly a fan of these non-taxi "taxi" services, but it seems like they are slowly and painfully rediscovering why taxis ended up so regulated in the first place.
[+] [-] cpsempek|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbob2000|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whipoodle|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arprocter|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wavefunction|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PinguTS|8 years ago|reply
Even uneducated people become very intelligent when it comes to gaming the system to their advantage. It is always a cat and rat game between technical adjustments and when people find a way to game the system again.
[+] [-] losteverything|8 years ago|reply
People learned the phone company would refund any Denied All Knowledge of a long distance call. Call up, get a credit.
Then phone company said you cant DAK calls 2 months in a row: so customers called in every other month.
Then, they eliminated operator handled calls for small bills. Call in, get an IVR, get a credit.
Phone company caught on and limited credits to $7 per month, every other month.
Customers started crediting <$7...
And on and in...cat and mouse.
Then, few realized you only had to pay 91% of the past due balance to not get shut off..
Others finally realized that if your account gets associated with a elected federal official or a PUC complaint you account will never get treated for collections.
--- Another simple one: having to press "0" 3 times to get to an agent on some IVRs..
[+] [-] 1vn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aianus|8 years ago|reply
You can't have a successful oligopoly when there's no barrier to entry.
[+] [-] alextheparrot|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] potatolicious|8 years ago|reply
I imagine multiple people (heck, many people) can win the game in this period.
[+] [-] CodeWriter23|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frikk|8 years ago|reply
A few weeks ago I took a ride with someone who was trying very hard not to "join the uber mafia". He said that most of the time he also has to turn off his phone, otherwise he gets screwed over.
The reason is that when there are no more drivers, he'll get matched with people on the other side of town. He doesn't get paid for the drive out, and sometimes people still cancel after waiting 20 minutes for an uber to show up after ordering. Even with surge pricing it didn't make financial sense, so he'll turn off his phone too or switch to Lyft during these periods.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] s73ver|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pgeorgep|8 years ago|reply
This reminds me a lot of the LinkedIn algo hacks that's driving me nuts right now. If you post super long form, cheesy, generic paragraphs of text with no links/visuals - you get massive exposure. The result has been superficial posts filling up my feed talking about who knows what.
Much like the nuisance of a pricing surge on Uber, these algo hacks can be a real pain.
[+] [-] jxramos|8 years ago|reply
"Separate research at Northeastern University has previously found passengers can game surge pricing with simple tricks such as waiting five minutes or crossing the road."
I know I've waited out twenty minutes or so to bypass the surge or at least dampen the surge to a rate I was comfortable with. Sort of becomes an auction experience at that point.
[+] [-] ph0rque|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EGreg|8 years ago|reply
Cartels is the main danger with unconditional basic income. If you make sure everyone can eat, you create a moral hazard, where the insured are not sensitive to price anymore. Having said that, we already have means-tested welfare and food stamps, and cartels of fruit stores don't spontaneously appear everywhere. However, they may appear in food deserts and other places where there aren't a lot of participants. Competition is the only factor I can think of to combat this. But in some areas with few participants, this collusion can ultimately happen.
And then of course there is this result: https://www.arxiv.org/abs/1201.3798v2
Does anyone here have constructive thoughts on how to overcome this problem? Price controls and collective bargaining via single payer is all I can think of besides competition.
[+] [-] abakker|8 years ago|reply
If consumers won't shop around, or make price sensitive decisions, then the market for the good in question becomes price insensitive. But, I think UBI is attractive primarily because it doesn't seek to tell people how to spend their money, or tell them what the right choices are. As an alternative to welfare, it should allow consumer preferences to play a greater part in the market.
[+] [-] SilasX|8 years ago|reply
Any UBI plan needs to come with a firm understanding of this dynamic and how to prevent it.
Search for "bridge":
http://www.landvaluetax.org/current-affairs-comment/winston-...
[+] [-] btreesOfSpring|8 years ago|reply
So not to say that these ride share services have moved to remove all these kinds of consumer protections that clearly were quickly dropped and exploited once they were removed due to the state of emergency but to a large extent, I feel like I had the chance to experience the larger forces of gamification that would happen if these protections were removed and circumstances were ripe for profit. Overall I am very happy with the changes ride sharing services have brought to supplement transportation options but there are certainly a lot more of these bumps and kinks to be worked out if these businesses hope to avoid a wave of government regulation.
[+] [-] reaperducer|8 years ago|reply
Still, even with a huge surge, Uber is 1/2 to 1/10th the price of a cab in my city.
[+] [-] yawz|8 years ago|reply
This summarizes why the model would continue to work. It's similar to low-cost airlines: most of us hate them, but most of us still use them.
[+] [-] mannykannot|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] habosa|8 years ago|reply
A prime example of this is the airlines. Southwest and Virgin have somehow convinced staff and passengers to be polite to each other, so boarding and other things go smoothly. The same flight for the same price on United or American is a mess of elbowing and passive agressiveness.
[+] [-] gmisra|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iamleppert|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gregorymichael|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GauntletWizard|8 years ago|reply
This sounds like a fix to one of my major complaints about Uber. The prices are too low. I like cheap rides, but I also like knowing that the people who are giving me rides (and providing me services, selling me goods, making those goods, etc) are making living wages.
And, to some level - This is collective bargaining. This is precisely what Unionists want, without all of the mess involved in actual unions. The drivers are collectively demanding higher wages, and Uber is responding.
On the other hand: There's a good reason we're seeing this pushback. Uber is a shitty, predatory company, and has relentlessly worked to drive down driver wages well beyond sustainable rates. (It's also a shitty company to it's full time employees, to which I will attest.)
[+] [-] mabey|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gertef|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bozoUser|8 years ago|reply
On talking to couple of drivers on a few occasions they confessed that they do this to filter out folks asking for lower mile rides!!
edit: This is obviously not in high uber/lyft density zone like a downtown SF where one can assume most of the rides endup being in the 2 mile radius.
[+] [-] mtl_usr|8 years ago|reply
Passenger rating does matter when it comes to how fast you are getting your ride.
[+] [-] noncoml|8 years ago|reply
I drove Uber for a month or so, and use to love short rides because:
1. I would stay in the region of my choice
2. They would help me reach my bonus # of rides targets
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nikon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kgdinesh|8 years ago|reply