
Uber Can’t Be Fixed – It’s Time for Regulators to Shut It Down - denzil_correa
https://hbr.org/2017/06/uber-cant-be-fixed-its-time-for-regulators-to-shut-it-down?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=hbr
======
CodeWriter23
This article has a really bad "smell test" problem for me. Mostly because the
author chose to actually point out that Lyft were the original perpetrators of
the illegal Rideshare ride, then swiftly shifts focus back to why Uber is the
company that needs to be crucified for this sin, and has not one gram of ire
for Lyft. I mean it seems a bit of a bias against Uber to me. And I'm no fan
of Uber.

And let's be real, the underlying whine of this author is Lyft and Uber broke
the status quo by bypassing the traditional way corporations get laws made -
lobbyists, bribes framed as campaign contributions, and favors. Instead Uber
put politicians in the position of having to pay for not passing legislation
Uber wanted.

~~~
ncr100
This comment smells like all-or-nothing thinking to me. The article may have a
flaw of unspecificity which I think has resulted in bumping readers off of the
writer's path of thinking, instead.

The article is educational, illustrating a short-term financially successful,
legally questionable approach to disruption, pitting evolving norms against
regulatory laws.

"Whining" is mere rhetoric, I assume from the commenter's perspective, since I
cannot find that tone present in the article.

Instead, a flaw I think the article has is overlooking pointedly justifying
why regulatory laws are necessary. It describes normalizing lawbreaking, and
implies Uber is establishing a cracked foundation for its new industry. But
the article didn't say that's bad.

Still, the article is valid in spite of it focusing on Uber: Uber pivoted
after seeing and complaining about Lyft gaining an advantage. Unfortunately,
why this is bad is undercapitalized by the article.

~~~
CodeWriter23
The headline implies that the Lyft/Uber approach is bad.

~~~
ncr100
Yeah the article could be much more strongly worded, even though it has a lot
going for it.

------
thaumasiotes
There are some points in here that I broadly agree with:

> Uber’s business model is predicated on lawbreaking. And having grown through
> intentional illegality, Uber can’t easily pivot toward following the rules.

> Uber’s most distinctive capabilities focused on defending its illegality.
> Uber built up staff, procedures, and software systems whose purpose was to
> enable and mobilize passengers and drivers to lobby regulators and
> legislators — creating political disaster for anyone who questioned Uber’s
> approach.

> Having built a corporate culture that celebrates breaking the law, it is
> surely no accident that Uber then faced scandal after scandal. How is an
> Uber manager to know which laws should be followed and which ignored?

Even this:

> If we allow an illegal business model to flourish in one sector, soon
> businesses in that sector and others will see that the shrewd strategy is to
> ignore the law, seek forgiveness rather than permission, and hope for the
> best.

That seems reasonable. But the author wants to draw a pretty different
conclusion than I would -- his point is that it's necessary to stomp hard on
this kind of behavior, because if people notice that breaking the law benefits
everyone, they will lose respect for the law.

I don't see that as a "problem" we should be attempting to solve. Where
breaking the law benefits everyone, we _should_ lose respect for the law. I
would say the law should stop staking out such ludicrous positions and then
trying to defend them based purely on the idea that if it loses a single
battle, chaos will reign everywhere.

Just yesterday I read a court judgment of a guy convicted of drug trafficking.
He was caught after police pulled him over for driving 79 mph in a 75 zone. To
me, that's not a victory for the cause of "respect for the law".

~~~
aaroninsf
The silent erroneous elision you make is that you take as an axiom that at
least in Uber's case, at least "broadly speaking" perhaps, "breaking the law
benefits everyone."

The silent proposition is that there is some body of law and regulation which
benefits no one, or which benefits some in an unjust way (e.g. protecting
markets from new entrants).

That is certainly true but it's the crux of the entire debate, and reasonable
position IMO is that if there are laws and regulations overdue for overhaul or
discard, that is a debate we have _first_ using established mechanisms.

There can not realistically be any gray area here. The law and regulation
cannot in a civil society be "opt in" and adherence be left in effect a matter
of discretion on the part of those e.g. seeking to "disrupt" the status quo.

There are always costs and benefits and extant law and regulation represents
the state of play in our society as to which arguments (rightly or wrongly)
have prevailed. There are mechanisms however painfully slow (from the
perspective of would-be disruptors) for moving the lines.

But maintaining collective complete commitment to consensus respect of those
lines _whatever they are despite personal preference or benefit_ is the very
foundation of the rule of law.

As an aside it's worth commenting that the overwhelming evidence is that
transgression is inevitably to the disproportionate benefit of a few, with the
costs disproportionately "externalized" on to the commons or the powerless.

Uber's behavior has been one demonstration of that after another.

~~~
GauntletWizard
Yes. I'm very glad Rosa Parks stood up as she was told, and then stood outside
the courthouse talking to passerbys while waving a sign.

~~~
aaroninsf
It's true she created a lot of vapor shareholder value while burning down a
runway of proportions not seen since the Pharaohs' day, and demonstrated just
how abusive one could be to employees in her own.

I had forgotten that thx.

------
PatentTroll
And what about AirBnb? Or any of the many 'gig economy' startups that flaunt
labor laws? I agree with the article. Let's not punish innovation, but let's
make sure we don't get a new normal of startups making money by breaking the
law. And not just abstract policy wonk big gummint type of law, but like the
things that make sure people don't get taken advantage of and are safe.

~~~
Jabanga
The laws restrict the right of people to do with their labour and private
property what they want. They should be left unenforced, just like laws
against marijuana and other personal choices. Driving things out of the formal
economy and into the informal economy, and punishing people for engaging in
voluntary interactions - in the name of 'protecting' them - has very harmful
unintended consequences and goes against the foundational principles of
liberal democracy.

Moreover, restricting voluntary economic interactions behind a wall of
regulatory licensing schemes, like hotel licenses and taxi licenses,
exacerbates income inequality:

[https://www.brookings.edu/research/make-elites-compete-
why-t...](https://www.brookings.edu/research/make-elites-compete-why-
the-1-earn-so-much-and-what-to-do-about-it/)

In short, there's no commonly advocated policy more harmful to society than
what you're advocating.

~~~
ubernostrum
_The laws restrict the right of people to do with their labour and private
property what they want._

When the choices you make with respect to the use of your property cause harm
to other people or their property, they have the right to stop you and to
recover damages for harm you've caused. When your voluntary transaction has
involuntary (for other people) effects on others' property, they have the
right to stop your transaction.

~~~
Jabanga
>When the choices you make with respect to the use of your property cause harm
to other people or their property,

Offering something on the market, that other consenting adults voluntarily
choose to buy, does not violate anyone's rights. Competitors do not have a
right to dictate how consumers spend their money, so being out competed is not
a violation of their rights.

What you're advocating is a blatant violation of their rights based on a
belief that people are entitled to other people's private property.

~~~
ubernostrum
If you and I each own property along a river, and I run a factory and you run
a farm, and I dump waste into the river that poisons your crops and livestock,
that's just me exercising my absolute right to my own property, yes? And
anything you do to try to stop or punish me is you feeling entitled to my
private property, yes?

~~~
Jabanga
Dumping waste is not a voluntary interaction. It's a violation of someone
else's private property. This has no resemblance to Uber out competing local
taxis.

At least learn the basis of free market ideology before criticizing it.

~~~
PatentTroll
Ok, so taxis. If it is going to be a voluntary transaction, I need to know 1)
the drivers background check to make sure he isn't a murderer or rapist, 2)
has a clean driving record, 3) has a license, 4) carries insurance that covers
me while I'm in his car, 5) is driving a safe vehicle, 6) and what the ride
costs. Do you really expect each taxi passenger to sort out all of that info
for each and every ride!? Wouldn't it be easier for everyone to get together
to set some standards and put some folks in charge of enforcing those
standards so that you can just hop in a cab and reasonably expect not to die?
Doesn't that sound reasonable? Well that's all the regulation is. If you want
to argue about NYC medallions and regulatory capture, you're not wrong. That
shit should be figured out. By involvement in government, voting, and citizen
action. What you're really mad about is the perceived inflexibility and
ineffective nature of that process. But you're also the same kind of free
market numbskull who supports unfettered capitalism and campaign donations,
which is how a special interest strangles a government body like a taxi cab
commission.

~~~
Jabanga
>Do you really expect each taxi passenger to sort out all of that info for
each and every ride!?

There can be certification.. A certifying body certifies that a taxi driver
meets all of the conditions you mentioned and issues certificates to those
drivers who do. There can be more than one certification standard, and
consumers would be free to choose which certifying standard they trust, or
even choose to use a driver with no certifications.

I'm not sure why such a world is so scary for you.

>But you're also the same kind of free market numbskull who supports
unfettered capitalism and campaign donations, which is how a special interest
strangles a government body like a taxi cab commission.

That's not a very nice or constructive comment. Where I live, Uber is banned,
and taxi service is heavily regulated. The taxi drivers are the most dangerous
drivers on the roads. Please give me free market competition that results in
the high quality service you see from Uber.

~~~
PatentTroll
Dude, that's exactly what taxi commissions are! They certify that taxis
conform to some basic standards. I'm not trying to be nice to you because the
ideas you are espousing are corrosive and dangerous. I oppose your false
ideology completely.

~~~
Jabanga
I recommend you read up the definition of 'certification '. A certification is
not mandatory. You're free to operate and offer your services in the market
without it. What you're describing is a license, which is required by law to
have. It's not voluntary. This is an incredibly important distinction that
you're completely ignoring.

You're calling my ideas "corrosive and dangerous" and claiming I have a "false
ideology" and yet you don't understand the essence of my point or the
arguments I'm raising (e.g. you fail to grasp the distinction between a
voluntary certification and a mandate license, which is at the heart of my
argument).

------
davidf18
Fascinating, an Associate Prof at Harvard who can't do research:

"Get a TLC license New York City With more riders than any other app, Uber is
a great way to make money driving in NYC. You'll need a TLC license to pick up
riders, but we've made the signup process quicker and easier than ever."

[https://www.uber.com/drive/new-york/get-a-
license/](https://www.uber.com/drive/new-york/get-a-license/)

and this: [http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-overview/](http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-
overview/)

Uber most certainly does follow the law. He should write a retraction. NYC is
by far the largest market for Uber. It took me 10 seconds to google this
information.

If this professor can't take the less than one minute to do research, how can
you trust absolutely anything else this man writes?

------
georgeecollins
I like the analogy to Napster. Napster was a fundamentally illegal business
that people accepted because of its' innovation. When it was shut down, things
didn't go back to the old model for music sales. Instead the old model was
replaced with companies that were innovative and legal.

------
canada_dry
Perhaps Amazon will take them over... someone's gotta deliver the Whole Foods
groceries.

</sarcasm>

------
GrumpyNl
Thats a great piece and right on the money.

------
suyash
The article failed to address one of the most critical problem with Uber -
it's bully culture internally specially against women and other employees who
were not bullies themselves. It starts straight from the top if anyone had any
doubt.

~~~
JKCalhoun
And get off my lawn, you, you ... bro-grammers.

Sorry, somewhat serious though. I was going to say something about this recent
"bro-culture" having cast a pall over the software engineering profession but
realized I was going to sound like an old man.

