Gonna have to wait two years for the fed to do anything. Right now it’s a lame duck president who can still veto and cause unlimited drama. Nothing is going to happen.
So will this impact Uber that does some extremely shady stuff around your profile / phone type / battery life / account history / micro location / etc to tease out level of desperation & price elasticity.
The links you provide do not disprove the claim. The first link shows the user with the lower battery actually was charged slightly more and the second link is evidence of an n=1 test where both were charged similarly. I don’t know if Uber does this, has done this or has never done this practice but it wouldn’t surprise me if they had.
Thank god everyone got their heads out of their ass on the e-ink pricetags on shelves as part of these law packages. Turns out employees love working with them and they don't "cut jobs" like the UFCW said they do?
Dynamic pricing seems to be a personalized form of price gouging. It's encouraging to see regulators jump on this quickly and try to nip it in the bud. I can't imagine working on a team that helps enable individual price gouging at a company.
Price controls are always and everywhere a net welfare negative because they interfere with the ability of the market to route resources to their best use.
I find it both naive and ignorant to think markets just magically work in everyone's favor. Did we forget the 19th and 20th centuries where capital was given basically free reign to do anything and we ended up with robber barons, monopolies, live shootouts between unions and companies, shanty towns, and massive economic depressions?
The parent thinks that only the government implements price controls.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Depends on what they are. Inflexible and broad price caps like what the U.S. had starting in 1974 can cause a lot of damage because they create backpressure where inflation is crushing everything up against the cap.
Sliding price caps that target only specific things can work, like parking fees that scale according to the median wage of a given part of a city.
This seems to be more like the latter rather than the former. Retailers can still adjust prices before the business day is over based on immediate feedback, they're just not allowed to dig through a potential customer's device to do so or target specific individuals.
The utility of money is not linear, and the utility of goods is different based on individual needs. That means a policy that reduces absolute efficiency can still improve total welfare by distributing things in a way that's more useful.
Price controls don't create more supply but they reduce the percentage of buyers income taken up by the inflated item. That increases their total utility because they can buy more things for that money. It also leads to higher growth through aggregate demand, invested savings and avoiding nonlinear negative effects (small businesses shutting down because they can't pay their bills).
A profit is the creation of something more valuable than its cost, so the people who generate more profit can acquire more resources than those who generate less. The people who create more wealth with those resources get more money.
For example, if 1 kg of iron produces more value when used to make cars than when used to make hammers, car manufacturers can pay more for the iron and acquire more of it, benefiting the community because the iron is used to make something more valuable. The extra cars produced are worth more than the hammers lost.
But, the abundance of cars makes cars less valuable, while the scarcity of hammers makes them more valuable. At some point, hammer manufacturers generate the same profit per kilogram of iron as car manufacturers. It is mathematically demonstrable that, at that point, the total value of cars and hammers reaches its highest level, and iron is being used at maximum efficiency.
Socialism has nothing even close to that because socialists don't know the value of things.
For that reason, one of the main tasks of Soviet spies was to go to USA supermarkets and record the prices of everything so that those prices could be applied in the Soviet Union, so they could plan what to produce. But that didn't work because free market prices are optimal, for local conditions, which were completely different in the Soviet Union.
So your Marxist economic beliefs simply don't work at all. They had been tried on more than 100 countries and failed on all of them. The Soviet Union produced fewer cars than Argentina and was never able to produce enough food to feed itself.
Therefore, it is easily demonstrable that the free market optimizes the use of resources, while socialism cannot even begin to start.
Doesn’t personalized pricing by definition make stuff cheaper for people with less money on a relative basis (compared to people who are able to pay more)? The point is to extract the most each person can pay, so it is people who are able and willing to pay more who end up worse off here. Not poor people.
NY state did it in June https://gothamist.com/news/ny-lawmakers-vote-to-ban-surveill... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48443192)
The part of the headline you dropped (that relies on personal data) is the new part
We should be doing this on the federal level we should not be doing it on the city level.
Gonna have to wait two years for the fed to do anything. Right now it’s a lame duck president who can still veto and cause unlimited drama. Nothing is going to happen.
So will this impact Uber that does some extremely shady stuff around your profile / phone type / battery life / account history / micro location / etc to tease out level of desperation & price elasticity.
Given Uber's history of ignoring laws they don't like, I don't expect anything to change until NY goes after them in court.
> battery life
lol - amazing how often highly technical people will believe urban legends when they fit their priors.
That one in particular has not only been denied, but disproven.
[0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/uber-surge-pricing-phone-bat...
[1] https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/verify/verify-does-uber-ch...
The links you provide do not disprove the claim. The first link shows the user with the lower battery actually was charged slightly more and the second link is evidence of an n=1 test where both were charged similarly. I don’t know if Uber does this, has done this or has never done this practice but it wouldn’t surprise me if they had.
How can you possibly disprove it with a single test?
Uber is known to intentionally offering different experience for different users at different times.
This is a good step.
Ban facial recognition by the government on civilians and ban Flock and similar. But they aren't interested in limiting their own power.
LexisNexis is another one. Shady broker that is buying our data and f*** reselling to everybody. Even hacked data from what I've heard
We need us gdpr General data protection legislation
Thank god everyone got their heads out of their ass on the e-ink pricetags on shelves as part of these law packages. Turns out employees love working with them and they don't "cut jobs" like the UFCW said they do?
Dynamic pricing seems to be a personalized form of price gouging. It's encouraging to see regulators jump on this quickly and try to nip it in the bud. I can't imagine working on a team that helps enable individual price gouging at a company.
I can't imagine living in an economy where every price I see may be singling me out for pricing abuse.
Price controls are always and everywhere a net welfare negative because they interfere with the ability of the market to route resources to their best use.
I find it both naive and ignorant to think markets just magically work in everyone's favor. Did we forget the 19th and 20th centuries where capital was given basically free reign to do anything and we ended up with robber barons, monopolies, live shootouts between unions and companies, shanty towns, and massive economic depressions?
The parent thinks that only the government implements price controls.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
Depends on what they are. Inflexible and broad price caps like what the U.S. had starting in 1974 can cause a lot of damage because they create backpressure where inflation is crushing everything up against the cap.
Sliding price caps that target only specific things can work, like parking fees that scale according to the median wage of a given part of a city.
This seems to be more like the latter rather than the former. Retailers can still adjust prices before the business day is over based on immediate feedback, they're just not allowed to dig through a potential customer's device to do so or target specific individuals.
The utility of money is not linear, and the utility of goods is different based on individual needs. That means a policy that reduces absolute efficiency can still improve total welfare by distributing things in a way that's more useful.
Price controls don't create more supply but they reduce the percentage of buyers income taken up by the inflated item. That increases their total utility because they can buy more things for that money. It also leads to higher growth through aggregate demand, invested savings and avoiding nonlinear negative effects (small businesses shutting down because they can't pay their bills).
The market actually has no such ability, despite what libertarians think.
Your statement is easy to make but false
Your statement is easy to make but false
A profit is the creation of something more valuable than its cost, so the people who generate more profit can acquire more resources than those who generate less. The people who create more wealth with those resources get more money.
For example, if 1 kg of iron produces more value when used to make cars than when used to make hammers, car manufacturers can pay more for the iron and acquire more of it, benefiting the community because the iron is used to make something more valuable. The extra cars produced are worth more than the hammers lost.
But, the abundance of cars makes cars less valuable, while the scarcity of hammers makes them more valuable. At some point, hammer manufacturers generate the same profit per kilogram of iron as car manufacturers. It is mathematically demonstrable that, at that point, the total value of cars and hammers reaches its highest level, and iron is being used at maximum efficiency.
Socialism has nothing even close to that because socialists don't know the value of things.
For that reason, one of the main tasks of Soviet spies was to go to USA supermarkets and record the prices of everything so that those prices could be applied in the Soviet Union, so they could plan what to produce. But that didn't work because free market prices are optimal, for local conditions, which were completely different in the Soviet Union.
So your Marxist economic beliefs simply don't work at all. They had been tried on more than 100 countries and failed on all of them. The Soviet Union produced fewer cars than Argentina and was never able to produce enough food to feed itself.
Therefore, it is easily demonstrable that the free market optimizes the use of resources, while socialism cannot even begin to start.
Doesn’t personalized pricing by definition make stuff cheaper for people with less money on a relative basis (compared to people who are able to pay more)? The point is to extract the most each person can pay, so it is people who are able and willing to pay more who end up worse off here. Not poor people.
Income/wealth isn’t the only indicator.
Should a woman with cancer pay more for a headscarf because she’s likely to need it more than a woman looking for a fashion accessory?