>Uber isn't doing anything like civil disobedience here, they're just making a new quick buck violating employment laws.
False. Uber is losing hundreds of millions of dollars.
>Aaand, in cases like this, it's always useful to ask: the laws we're breaking, who are they intended to benefit or protect? People without a lot of economic or political power to begin with? Yeah, maybe we should leave those laws alone--by definition, the people we're hurting are the ones least able to do anything about it anyway.
Intentions are irrelevant. It's end results that matter.
People vote with their wallets.
There is only one reason why Uber has created $51bn of market value, many people find it superior to the alternatives they have at their disposal.
Uber _helps_ those with low economic or political power, more transportation options at a cheaper price.
People vote with their votes, and buy things with their wallets. Voting isn't merely a synonym for choosing, it's an act of political engagement. I don't "vote" for Tide-brand soap when I buy it, because buying consumer goods isn't (usually) a political act.
Also, Uber doesn't help people with low economic or political power. Those people still have feature phones and walk or take the bus.
Isn't it actually spending hundreds of millions of VC dollars building a global monopoly?
As the article described, this is a network effects platform that gets better as it grows. This also gives them the ability to offer a better product at a lower price, squeezing out competitors.
The thing that amazes me the most about Uber is the flagrant disregard of local laws, and the lack of repercussions.
> The thing that amazes me the most about Uber is the flagrant disregard of local laws, and the lack of repercussions.
Uber is using / exploiting the regulator's method of enforcement, which tends to be persuading people to comply with the law and taking them to cour as a matter of last resort or for flagrant breaches.
We see this with companies who avoid (but not evade) taxes - the tax authorities tighten the rules, arrange for a partial payback, and continue scrutiny.
Sometimes this makes sense. Court cases are expensive and not guaranteed. At least this way some of the money is gathered.
But it does leave space for companies like Uber to operate in grey areas of law that's written in statute and the way the courts have interpreted it and the way the regulators enforce it.
>"Uber is losing hundreds of millions of dollars."
This has no effect on founders or early investors; they'll get rich anyway. This is Silicon Valley, where empires are built losing hundreds of millions of dollars.
False. Uber is losing hundreds of millions of dollars.
>Aaand, in cases like this, it's always useful to ask: the laws we're breaking, who are they intended to benefit or protect? People without a lot of economic or political power to begin with? Yeah, maybe we should leave those laws alone--by definition, the people we're hurting are the ones least able to do anything about it anyway.
Intentions are irrelevant. It's end results that matter. People vote with their wallets. There is only one reason why Uber has created $51bn of market value, many people find it superior to the alternatives they have at their disposal. Uber _helps_ those with low economic or political power, more transportation options at a cheaper price.