My new favorite phrase is 'you can't make this sh*t up.'
Why? Because it always seems to be true. You'd think I wouldn't be surprised by now. But I am, over and over again. Some part of me clearly wants to believe people are rational. But, in reality, few of us are. Especially the rich. They aren't just irrational, they are exuberantly irrational.
Case in point, the local millionaires trying to bring the 2024 summer olympics to DC.
The Washington Post just uploaded a glowing profile of the movers and shakers behind this deal. See my earlier blog post about them here.
I won't bore you with fawning portraits painted of the individuals behind the group. Suffice it to say here that two things caught my eye, and both of them demonstrate the folly of the rich.
1. The Washington 2024 crowd wants Olympic facilities to be built on city land! That's right, let's use city land to build stuff for other people, because clearly DC doesn't have any pressing things to spend money on. I mean, yes, there is that old hospital housing hundreds of homeless families, but move along now, nothing to see here. Yes, it is true, we need to build some affordable housing, but isn't that what PG County is for?
2. The Olympics would be good for DC's reputation on the world stage. House of Cards make us look bad, they say. Especially to the Chinese. And, we simply can't have that. Whip up some distractions ya'll!
May I suggest instead that there's an easier way to fix this. Pull out your capes delusional Olympians, get your wigs brushed out, call in your back up singers, and put Gloria Gaynor's 'I'm coming out' on the sound system. Then have yourselves a big ole drag party. You'd do all of us less harm that way.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Breaking News on Arlington Street Cars, and Bad News for the Purple Line?
The Washington Post is reporting that Arlington is going to pull the plug on planned Streetcars for Columbia Pike and Crystal City. You can read the story here.
This is bad news for Arlington, and could signal bad news for Maryland's purple line project. Why?
Two troubling signs:
1. Promises of State aid weren't enough to save the project. Arlington county officials had already secured 135 million from the state of Virginia. Usually, when transportation projects get killed it is because you can't get the state or feds on board. They were on board here. It still got killed. The purple line has a similar set of circumstances.
2. Opponents of local/state/federal spending on infrastructure are organized. The Arlington County Board elections a couple of weeks ago saw the ouster of a streetcar advocate and the election of someone ardently opposed to them. In the WAPO story, the Arlington County Board chair acknowledged that outcome when he announced the decision, saying, "We were caught flatfooted, we did not effectively make the case." In Maryland, Larry Hogan hasn't said much about the Purple Line, but his anti-tax rhetoric suggests he won't support it. And, as readers of this blog know, the purple line's opponents are organized and willing to sue to get their way.
The bigger question--what does all of this mean for redevelopment in the DMV's inner suburbs? Nothing good for people not adjacent to the city's already jammed metro system.
This is bad news for Arlington, and could signal bad news for Maryland's purple line project. Why?
Two troubling signs:
1. Promises of State aid weren't enough to save the project. Arlington county officials had already secured 135 million from the state of Virginia. Usually, when transportation projects get killed it is because you can't get the state or feds on board. They were on board here. It still got killed. The purple line has a similar set of circumstances.
2. Opponents of local/state/federal spending on infrastructure are organized. The Arlington County Board elections a couple of weeks ago saw the ouster of a streetcar advocate and the election of someone ardently opposed to them. In the WAPO story, the Arlington County Board chair acknowledged that outcome when he announced the decision, saying, "We were caught flatfooted, we did not effectively make the case." In Maryland, Larry Hogan hasn't said much about the Purple Line, but his anti-tax rhetoric suggests he won't support it. And, as readers of this blog know, the purple line's opponents are organized and willing to sue to get their way.
The bigger question--what does all of this mean for redevelopment in the DMV's inner suburbs? Nothing good for people not adjacent to the city's already jammed metro system.
Friday, November 14, 2014
Random MOCO Pic of the Day--Less Blue than We thought?
I took this photograph a month ago on the way to Rock Hill Orchard in northern Montgomery County. At the time, it just seemed out of place, uncharacteristic of Montgomery County.
Not only was the church celebrating a Louisiana clan who became millionaires selling duck callers, it was celebrating a clan that was becoming increasingly outspoken in its support for the GOP. Sure, MOCO has ducks and duck hunters, but MOCO's made-it-big-types are more likely to be in government or tech sector. MOCO is also (usually) thought of as 'terra firma' for Democratic politicians. When I made this trip, Anthony Brown was considered a shoe in for the governor's race (in MOCO and the state).
This sign looks prophetic now. In the gubernatorial election, 37% of MOCO voters supported the state's Republican candidate, and eventual winner Larry Hogan. That's a 6% point gain over the share earned in the county by Bob Ehrlich, the 2010 Republican gubernatorial candidate.
What this change means and how permanent it is remain unclear. But, one thing is for certain--there are multiple ways to take a place's political temperature. Here's one of them!
Thursday, November 6, 2014
In-state Tuiton--Subsidy or Social Contract?
This weekend the Washington Post had a provocative column by Fred Hiatt arguing that in-state tuition is basically a subsidy for the rich.
Say what?
Well, as Hiatt sees it, in-state tuition is a subsidy in as much as the state spends about $19,000 per student per semester but only charges him/her $9,400 a semester for tuition. And, since wealthy kids go to college at much higher rates than their poor and working class peers, this is a "regressive" subsidy. It helps the rich more than the poor.
On the face of it, this sounds like a reasonable argument. Shouldn't the governments be concentrating its subsidies on the people who need them the most?
There are two problems with this line of thinking. (There are actually quite a few problems, but hey, this is a blog, not a college essay, so I'll spare you).
First, subsidies don't just have to be for poor people. Subsidies can also be used to build up and support social goods. Social goods are meant to be 'consumed' by as many people as possible, and as such have an impact across society. If we adopt the idea that subsidies should only be for the poor, then we'd never have interstate highways, fire departments, police, or any number of services built for and used by the entire populace.
Second, social goods tend to bind people together from across society at large. In the realm of education, that means that a subsidized state university becomes something that belongs to all of us--rich and poor, black and white, young and old. If you don't treat education as a public good, then it becomes just another consumer good--like a television, a car, or even an extended vacation. Those who can afford to buy it can. Those that can't, don't.
Of course, those rich kids in Potomac that Hiatt thinks are getting unnecessary handouts will still be able to afford unsubsidized tuition and will still go to college. But, those at the bottom of the economic ladder, who may already find the $9,400 tuition hard to pay, will be locked out of the system entirely. And, that will just be the way it is, because after all, when something becomes a commodity, it isn't something everyone should have, or that benefits us all. It is just something you buy.
There's also the unfortunate fact that when you only subsidize the neediest, the better-offs tend to point fingers and make moral judgements. And, then they'll fight to undo them, on the grounds that the recipients are undeserving.
Hiatt may fancy himself a progressive tax maven, but what he's really doing is regressive. He's abandoning the notion that there are things government should provide for all of us. It is an attack, however implicit, on the whole notion of the social contract.
Think I'm exaggerating? I wish I were. But, Hiatt shows his hand at the end of his essay when he argues that the in-state tuition 'subsidy' "mirrors" entitlements like "tax deductions for mortgages [and] charitable giving".
Seriously.
Take that one in.
Subsidized public education is no different than a middle class tax write off.
I guess I missed all those inspirational PSAs during Saturday morning cartoons that encouraged me to aim high because a mortgage tax deduction could be in my future.
p.s. there's nothing stopping the state of Maryland, or universities themselves from providing subsidies to low income students to attend college. In fact, if universities want to create a more progressive subsidy system, I'd suggest cutting upper level administration salaries (presidents and provosts making over 200k a year) and applying the savings to students in need.
Say what?
Well, as Hiatt sees it, in-state tuition is a subsidy in as much as the state spends about $19,000 per student per semester but only charges him/her $9,400 a semester for tuition. And, since wealthy kids go to college at much higher rates than their poor and working class peers, this is a "regressive" subsidy. It helps the rich more than the poor.
On the face of it, this sounds like a reasonable argument. Shouldn't the governments be concentrating its subsidies on the people who need them the most?
There are two problems with this line of thinking. (There are actually quite a few problems, but hey, this is a blog, not a college essay, so I'll spare you).
First, subsidies don't just have to be for poor people. Subsidies can also be used to build up and support social goods. Social goods are meant to be 'consumed' by as many people as possible, and as such have an impact across society. If we adopt the idea that subsidies should only be for the poor, then we'd never have interstate highways, fire departments, police, or any number of services built for and used by the entire populace.
Second, social goods tend to bind people together from across society at large. In the realm of education, that means that a subsidized state university becomes something that belongs to all of us--rich and poor, black and white, young and old. If you don't treat education as a public good, then it becomes just another consumer good--like a television, a car, or even an extended vacation. Those who can afford to buy it can. Those that can't, don't.
Of course, those rich kids in Potomac that Hiatt thinks are getting unnecessary handouts will still be able to afford unsubsidized tuition and will still go to college. But, those at the bottom of the economic ladder, who may already find the $9,400 tuition hard to pay, will be locked out of the system entirely. And, that will just be the way it is, because after all, when something becomes a commodity, it isn't something everyone should have, or that benefits us all. It is just something you buy.
There's also the unfortunate fact that when you only subsidize the neediest, the better-offs tend to point fingers and make moral judgements. And, then they'll fight to undo them, on the grounds that the recipients are undeserving.
Hiatt may fancy himself a progressive tax maven, but what he's really doing is regressive. He's abandoning the notion that there are things government should provide for all of us. It is an attack, however implicit, on the whole notion of the social contract.
Think I'm exaggerating? I wish I were. But, Hiatt shows his hand at the end of his essay when he argues that the in-state tuition 'subsidy' "mirrors" entitlements like "tax deductions for mortgages [and] charitable giving".
Seriously.
Take that one in.
Subsidized public education is no different than a middle class tax write off.
I guess I missed all those inspirational PSAs during Saturday morning cartoons that encouraged me to aim high because a mortgage tax deduction could be in my future.
p.s. there's nothing stopping the state of Maryland, or universities themselves from providing subsidies to low income students to attend college. In fact, if universities want to create a more progressive subsidy system, I'd suggest cutting upper level administration salaries (presidents and provosts making over 200k a year) and applying the savings to students in need.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Not sure about right and wrong? Just hire a consultant to tell you.
Just imagine that your kid comes to you one evening and asks--have I been good enough for Santa Claus this year? And, imagine you respond by saying, 'let's hire a consultant to figure that out!'
Sounds silly, huh? Well, that's what Montgomery County's Board of Education recently did when the Washington Post reported that some of its members were racking up questionable credit card expenses.
They paid $140,000 to a local law firm (which has already done about 600k worth of work for the board over the last two years) to review the expenses and identify any wrong doing. That's right, you have to pay someone to tell you you've been spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave.
Who knew you could outsource all of your moral quandaries? Not I, but things are about to change in my life. I'm going to start outsourcing my moral quandaries to consultants as well.
This April 15th, I think I'll delay my taxes and spend the money instead on a consultant who can tell me if I really need to do this. I found a great guy, too. Sure, he's got a bunker in his backyard, a 'don't tread on me' flag in his front yard, and a twitchy habit of always looking over his shoulder, but he SWEARS he's a consultant.
I'm also reconsidering those 40 hours a week I'm meant to work. I mean, there's nothing in my contract about that. 'Full-time' can mean so many things. Like that poster that says 'make your time here as full as it can be.' Or the meme on Facebook with that bottle of wine and a caption telling me to 'live it up.' That means to the fullest doesn't it? And, anyway, I have been wanting to sleep in late, so I think I'll take Fridays off from now on. And, I'll hire my friend, let's call him Steve, to review the situation if and when the boss calls.
I could get used to this!
Sounds silly, huh? Well, that's what Montgomery County's Board of Education recently did when the Washington Post reported that some of its members were racking up questionable credit card expenses.
They paid $140,000 to a local law firm (which has already done about 600k worth of work for the board over the last two years) to review the expenses and identify any wrong doing. That's right, you have to pay someone to tell you you've been spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave.
Who knew you could outsource all of your moral quandaries? Not I, but things are about to change in my life. I'm going to start outsourcing my moral quandaries to consultants as well.
This April 15th, I think I'll delay my taxes and spend the money instead on a consultant who can tell me if I really need to do this. I found a great guy, too. Sure, he's got a bunker in his backyard, a 'don't tread on me' flag in his front yard, and a twitchy habit of always looking over his shoulder, but he SWEARS he's a consultant.
I'm also reconsidering those 40 hours a week I'm meant to work. I mean, there's nothing in my contract about that. 'Full-time' can mean so many things. Like that poster that says 'make your time here as full as it can be.' Or the meme on Facebook with that bottle of wine and a caption telling me to 'live it up.' That means to the fullest doesn't it? And, anyway, I have been wanting to sleep in late, so I think I'll take Fridays off from now on. And, I'll hire my friend, let's call him Steve, to review the situation if and when the boss calls.
I could get used to this!
Monday, October 13, 2014
Toys for Police or Aid for Victims--who or what is DOJ's asset forfeiture for?
PG County police has a newish mobile command center. It looks glossy, sophisticated, and high-tech, which is to say, cool.*
The techie-fizz wears off, however, when you realize the county got the new command center through the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Equitable Sharing Program, which allows state and municipal police to share in a portion of so called "ill-gotten assets" (i.e. those seized under suspicion that a federal crime has been committed). Here's the formal definition of the program on DOJ's webpage.
It sounds good doesn't it? Hitting the bad guys by going after their money. 'What could be wrong with that?' you ask? A lot, as it turns out.
An investigative series on the program by the Washington Post highlights two issues in particular. The first is that seizure of property can occur based on suspicion (i.e. without concrete evidence). Ordinary citizens can have cash, vehicles, and other property seized on suspicion that it was obtained through illegal means.
The second problem is that even if police fail to produce enough evidence for an indictment, they can still keep your property. In fact, the only way to get your stuff back is to negotiate, or hire a lawyer and go to court. The Washington Post found that 81% of the cases it tracked through a FOIA request did not result in an indictment. Your pockets for the picking--local law enforcement edition.
The third problem--do victims of crime benefit from Equitable Sharing?--brings us back to that bus. When DOJ is pressed to justify the program given these obvious problems, it usually resorts to tropes about helping victims. Here's how a DOJ spokesperson described the program to a Washington Post Reporter: "It [Equitable Sharing] removes the tools of crime from criminal organizations, deprives wrongdoers of the proceeds of their crimes, recovers property that may be used to compensate victims, and deters crime."
So, how do victims make out in the Equitable Sharing Bonanza? Not well, it turns out. State and local forces would rather buy stuff than help already existing victims. According to the Washington Post, since 2008 the state and local police from across the country have received 2.5 billion from the Equitable Sharing Program. And, a breakdown of the categories for national spending demonstrate victims are at the bottom of the list. One billion dollars of that spending was categorized as 'other,' as in 'none of your damned business how we spent the money.' The second largest spending category--communications and computers--sucked up 436 million of total funds. Likewise, 261 million went to "building and improvements," 215 million on salaries, and 177 on weapons. Victims, "community-based programs" in DOJ parlance, got a paltry 20 million.
So, the next time you see the PG County Mobile Command Unit tooling around town, ask the police chief why he didn't spend that money on helping gunshot victims, or victims of domestic violence, or victims of elder abuse? The list goes on and on.
By the way, the question about victims shouldn't stop you from asking all the other questions the WAPO reporting begs you to ask, including whether we really do have a presumption of innocence anymore?
* The picture of the mobile command center is from PG County's website.
The techie-fizz wears off, however, when you realize the county got the new command center through the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Equitable Sharing Program, which allows state and municipal police to share in a portion of so called "ill-gotten assets" (i.e. those seized under suspicion that a federal crime has been committed). Here's the formal definition of the program on DOJ's webpage.
It sounds good doesn't it? Hitting the bad guys by going after their money. 'What could be wrong with that?' you ask? A lot, as it turns out.
An investigative series on the program by the Washington Post highlights two issues in particular. The first is that seizure of property can occur based on suspicion (i.e. without concrete evidence). Ordinary citizens can have cash, vehicles, and other property seized on suspicion that it was obtained through illegal means.
The second problem is that even if police fail to produce enough evidence for an indictment, they can still keep your property. In fact, the only way to get your stuff back is to negotiate, or hire a lawyer and go to court. The Washington Post found that 81% of the cases it tracked through a FOIA request did not result in an indictment. Your pockets for the picking--local law enforcement edition.
The third problem--do victims of crime benefit from Equitable Sharing?--brings us back to that bus. When DOJ is pressed to justify the program given these obvious problems, it usually resorts to tropes about helping victims. Here's how a DOJ spokesperson described the program to a Washington Post Reporter: "It [Equitable Sharing] removes the tools of crime from criminal organizations, deprives wrongdoers of the proceeds of their crimes, recovers property that may be used to compensate victims, and deters crime."
So, how do victims make out in the Equitable Sharing Bonanza? Not well, it turns out. State and local forces would rather buy stuff than help already existing victims. According to the Washington Post, since 2008 the state and local police from across the country have received 2.5 billion from the Equitable Sharing Program. And, a breakdown of the categories for national spending demonstrate victims are at the bottom of the list. One billion dollars of that spending was categorized as 'other,' as in 'none of your damned business how we spent the money.' The second largest spending category--communications and computers--sucked up 436 million of total funds. Likewise, 261 million went to "building and improvements," 215 million on salaries, and 177 on weapons. Victims, "community-based programs" in DOJ parlance, got a paltry 20 million.
So, the next time you see the PG County Mobile Command Unit tooling around town, ask the police chief why he didn't spend that money on helping gunshot victims, or victims of domestic violence, or victims of elder abuse? The list goes on and on.
By the way, the question about victims shouldn't stop you from asking all the other questions the WAPO reporting begs you to ask, including whether we really do have a presumption of innocence anymore?
* The picture of the mobile command center is from PG County's website.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
'Uber This!' Said the Taxi Driver.
I'm about to kick it old school. In the process I'll probably freak out a few hipsters. And, I'm sure to attract the wrath of an economist or two. But, here goes...
Consumer welfare shouldn't trump the welfare of those who produce what consumers buy. The goal should be to find some balance between the two.
Unfortunately, consumers are today's gods while producers are pesky obstacles to progress. Let's take a case in point. The Uber debates.
For those of you who live outside the DMV or in places without Uber, it is basically an informal taxi service. Because you have to be an Uber 'member' to catch a ride with an Uber driver, Uber isn't registered as a taxi company. I put 'member' in scare quotes, however, because all it takes to gain membership is a simple download of the Uber app. The app let's you request a ride and see the closest drivers near you.
I've never taken Uber. It started to get big about the time I had a baby, and since my little one can't ride in a car without a car seat, all taxis (formal or otherwise) are a no-go for me at the moment. I'm not completely out of the loop though. A friend used Uber to catch a ride from my house to hers the other night. I watched her request a ride and peered at the map showing where all the Uber cars in the area were. We were able to guestimate (with accuracy) how long it would take for one to arrive.
All of which is to say that I get the attraction of Uber. Uber gives you more options (especially in the suburbs where getting a taxi is harder than in the city), and it is often faster at pick-ups than traditional taxis are.
It is annoying, however, to see Uber described as "rais[ing] consumer welfare." That's what the IGM Economic Experts Panel recently did. It is also annoying to hear Uber's legions of fans describe it with the kind of hyperbole usually reserved for tent revivals in the South. One Uber fan on Business Insider wrote: "Uber has changed my life and as God is my witness I will never take a taxi again."
Really? So that's what Scarlett O'Hara was talking about--a ride to Atlanta.
On the face of it IGM is right. Uber does improve consumer welfare. However, it does so at the expense of a lot of other things.
What are those other things? Thanks go to the Washington Post's Catherine Rampell for pointing out some of these in her recent op-ed about Uber. She notes, for example, that despite claims to the contrary, Uber isn't all that green. Indeed, their goal is to be immediately available to anyone who requests a ride, and that means flooding the streets of big cities with Uber drivers. The inevitable result is a lot of idling cars. According to Rampell there's also evidence that people take Uber instead of greener options, like buses and metrorail.
There are other problems with Uber, though, that can't fit into the space of an Op-ed in the Washington Post. Here's where MOCOMusings comes in. Let's look at the drivers. Driving a taxi can be a middle class job, although a difficult one. You know that feeling you get after a road trip where you've done all the driving? The cramped legs, twitchy fingers, and achy back. Taxi drivers often do road trip amounts of driving everyday. So, they get those feelings everyday. The regulations can also be a pain--you can't refuse customers (even though many do by simply 'not seeing them), and your car has to pass frequent inspection.
The job can be worth it, though, because the pay is decent, the regulations and fares are predictable (and only change on an annual basis, if at all), and you've got flexibility (need to pop into the store to get something for your kid, you can do it). Uber's model will destroy or undermine all of that. In fact, its business model vis-à-vis its employees is to off-load most of the risks onto its drivers. Drivers have to buy their car (although it must fit Uber's specifications), pay for the insurance, deal with aggressive/drunk customers, compete with the heaps of new drivers Uber keeps hiring, and accept fare reductions that often happen on a whim. Oh, and let's not forget the commission the drivers have to pay Uber, a fee also subject to unannounced change. Don't believe me? Check out this post on a near strike by Uber drivers based on some of these practices.
The taxi-riding public can demand omnipresent services. It is their right, I suppose. But, the Uber-riding public among them might want to stop equating their demands with all that is good and holy. Uber provides its service in much the same way Nike and other large corporations do--at the expense of their labor. And, all those economists who tell you Uber is great for the flexibility-demanding American workforce are just deluding themselves. Uber is an attractive option for many drivers because they can't find a job elsewhere.
Somewhere in Michigan (I presume), Henry Ford, who believed workers should be paid enough to be consumers, is turning over in his grave.
Consumer welfare shouldn't trump the welfare of those who produce what consumers buy. The goal should be to find some balance between the two.
Unfortunately, consumers are today's gods while producers are pesky obstacles to progress. Let's take a case in point. The Uber debates.
For those of you who live outside the DMV or in places without Uber, it is basically an informal taxi service. Because you have to be an Uber 'member' to catch a ride with an Uber driver, Uber isn't registered as a taxi company. I put 'member' in scare quotes, however, because all it takes to gain membership is a simple download of the Uber app. The app let's you request a ride and see the closest drivers near you.
I've never taken Uber. It started to get big about the time I had a baby, and since my little one can't ride in a car without a car seat, all taxis (formal or otherwise) are a no-go for me at the moment. I'm not completely out of the loop though. A friend used Uber to catch a ride from my house to hers the other night. I watched her request a ride and peered at the map showing where all the Uber cars in the area were. We were able to guestimate (with accuracy) how long it would take for one to arrive.
All of which is to say that I get the attraction of Uber. Uber gives you more options (especially in the suburbs where getting a taxi is harder than in the city), and it is often faster at pick-ups than traditional taxis are.
It is annoying, however, to see Uber described as "rais[ing] consumer welfare." That's what the IGM Economic Experts Panel recently did. It is also annoying to hear Uber's legions of fans describe it with the kind of hyperbole usually reserved for tent revivals in the South. One Uber fan on Business Insider wrote: "Uber has changed my life and as God is my witness I will never take a taxi again."
Really? So that's what Scarlett O'Hara was talking about--a ride to Atlanta.
On the face of it IGM is right. Uber does improve consumer welfare. However, it does so at the expense of a lot of other things.
What are those other things? Thanks go to the Washington Post's Catherine Rampell for pointing out some of these in her recent op-ed about Uber. She notes, for example, that despite claims to the contrary, Uber isn't all that green. Indeed, their goal is to be immediately available to anyone who requests a ride, and that means flooding the streets of big cities with Uber drivers. The inevitable result is a lot of idling cars. According to Rampell there's also evidence that people take Uber instead of greener options, like buses and metrorail.
There are other problems with Uber, though, that can't fit into the space of an Op-ed in the Washington Post. Here's where MOCOMusings comes in. Let's look at the drivers. Driving a taxi can be a middle class job, although a difficult one. You know that feeling you get after a road trip where you've done all the driving? The cramped legs, twitchy fingers, and achy back. Taxi drivers often do road trip amounts of driving everyday. So, they get those feelings everyday. The regulations can also be a pain--you can't refuse customers (even though many do by simply 'not seeing them), and your car has to pass frequent inspection.
The job can be worth it, though, because the pay is decent, the regulations and fares are predictable (and only change on an annual basis, if at all), and you've got flexibility (need to pop into the store to get something for your kid, you can do it). Uber's model will destroy or undermine all of that. In fact, its business model vis-à-vis its employees is to off-load most of the risks onto its drivers. Drivers have to buy their car (although it must fit Uber's specifications), pay for the insurance, deal with aggressive/drunk customers, compete with the heaps of new drivers Uber keeps hiring, and accept fare reductions that often happen on a whim. Oh, and let's not forget the commission the drivers have to pay Uber, a fee also subject to unannounced change. Don't believe me? Check out this post on a near strike by Uber drivers based on some of these practices.
The taxi-riding public can demand omnipresent services. It is their right, I suppose. But, the Uber-riding public among them might want to stop equating their demands with all that is good and holy. Uber provides its service in much the same way Nike and other large corporations do--at the expense of their labor. And, all those economists who tell you Uber is great for the flexibility-demanding American workforce are just deluding themselves. Uber is an attractive option for many drivers because they can't find a job elsewhere.
Somewhere in Michigan (I presume), Henry Ford, who believed workers should be paid enough to be consumers, is turning over in his grave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)