# Uber and Lyft Waive Fees for Victims of Las Vegas Attack



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/10/uber-and-lyft-waive-fees-for-victims-of-las-vegas-attack.html








Photo: David Becker/Getty Images
In the hours following the deadliest mass shooting America has ever seen, Uber and Lyft were swift to respond to the needs of their affected customers, changing their pricing structures in the Las Vegas area in order to better assist victims of the attack.

In a statement made to Mashable, Uber said that charges would be waived for all rides that occurred "around the affected area" Sunday evening, and confirmed that the company would continue to offer free trips for passengers going to and from a variety of crisis-related locations.

Our hearts ache for everyone affected by this senseless tragedy. We stand ready to support the victims and the Las Vegas community as they recover from this devastating act. Shortly after hearing about the incident, we worked to ensure all rides from around the affected area were free of charge. Additionally, we are providing free rides to and from area hospitals, the family reunification center, and United Blood Services donor centers for those who wish to donate blood.

The report by Mashable also confirmed that while competitor Lyft did not offer free rides to affected passengers at the time of the attack, the company did waive the fees associated with "Prime Time" (its version of surge pricing) citywide last night, after being made aware of the situation.

We're heartbroken. Our thoughts are with the victims and their loved ones. We suspended Prime Time immediately after we understood what was happening. We also communicated to drivers about the developing situation.

Both companies have been intensely criticized for their responses to previous terror attacks, which often resulted in passengers facing exorbitant fees due to high surge pricing in the midst of a crisis. Though they refunded the affected customers after the fact, the majority of critics cited the move as too little too late, as the damage to those trying to flee the attack was already done. This was likely the inspiration behind the swift, proactive measures taken by Uber and Lyft this time around. And it is likely why customers have had such a resoundingly positive response to the companies' actions:


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

That's wonderful and all but what about the drivers? It's great pr for them but the drivers are bearing most of the expense.


----------



## Jo3030 (Jan 2, 2016)

Just for PR purposes.
They should still pay the surge rates to the drivers.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Uber and Lyft can't have it both ways, if they want to call us independent contractors then nothing should change on the driver side. They are paying us according to the agreement. If they want to lose money giving out free rides to customers that's their business.

Hopefully people in that area can chime in on anything that should change to driver rates.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Uber and Lyft can't have it both ways, if they want to call us independent contractors then nothing should change on the driver side. They are paying us according to the agreement. If they want to lose money giving out free rides to customers that's their business.
> 
> Hopefully people in that area can chime in on anything that should change to driver rates.


I agree yet uber has a long-standing rule that they cap surge in a state of emergency. We bear the brunt of that because we are asked to drive in hazardous conditions for maybe 2x.


----------



## getawaycar (Jul 10, 2017)

Disgusted Driver said:


> I agree yet uber has a long-standing rule that they cap surge in a state of emergency. We bear the brunt of that because we are asked to drive in hazardous conditions for maybe 2x.


What hazardous conditions? The shooter was dead long before Uber waived the fees.

As a passenger what's the point of using rideshare if its going to be more expensive than a traditional taxi? At least a taxi doesn't try to gouge you with surge pricing because their price is always the same.


----------



## Jo3030 (Jan 2, 2016)

I agree -- we shouldn't be driving in hazardous conditions.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

getawaycar said:


> What hazardous conditions? The shooter was dead long before Uber waived the fees.
> 
> As a passenger what's the point of using rideshare if its going to be more expensive than a traditional taxi? At least a taxi doesn't try to gouge you with surge pricing because their price is always the same.


I was using state of emergency/ hazardous conditions as an example of when uber is doing something for their customers on our backs.

As to why you would pay more for rideshare than a taxi, that's easy. If you want a fast clean ride, you'll pay it. If there are plenty of cabs around then you won't.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Jo3030 said:


> Just for PR purposes.
> They should still pay the surge rates to the drivers.


That would actually be bad PR I believe as it shows that the drivers are profiting because of a tragedy, that their motivation is not to be helpful but to chase extra earnings. By showing them responding at normal pay it shows everyone pulling together and helping the community.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

what right does uber have to give away or discount the labors of their independent contractors? Legally they probably have a right to set the price at anything above 0 but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. 
I should take care of the public in times of emergency but the public does not need to take care of me? Seems a bit onesided. Uberfunitis You have no trouble accepting market forces when it gets you a cheap ride but you reject market forces in this case. Seems like your guiding principal is cheap ride even if it screws the driver.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Disgusted Driver said:


> what right does uber have to give away or discount the labors of their independent contractors? Legally they probably have a right to set the prove at anything above 0 but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.
> I should take care of the public in times of emergency but the public does not need to take care of me? Seems a bit insides. Uberfunitis You have no trouble accepting market forces when it gets you a cheap ride but you reject market forces in this case. Seems like your guiding principal is cheap ride even if it screws the driver.


I am for market forces when not in time of disaster and tragedy to me that is price gouging and taking advantage of the situation. The statement that I replied to said it would be good PR to pay surge to the driver even though the passenger was not being charged surge. I do not think that would make for good PR on Ubers part at all especially as the general public sees the drivers and Uber as one.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

uber is not some public utility. riders have should have NO expectation of a cheap and always available ride. there is no guarantee of that. If you're going to completely forfeit your transportation needs to a private independent contractor 3rd party, you always run this risk. 

if you want a guaranteed cheap ride that's always available whenever you want it, drive your own car.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

heynow321 said:


> uber is not some public utility. riders have should have NO expectation of a cheap and always available ride. there is no guarantee of that. If you're going to completely forfeit your transportation needs to a private independent contractor 3rd party, you always run this risk.
> 
> if you want a guaranteed cheap ride that's always available whenever you want it, drive your own car.


The same concept applies to fuel for example in most states the owner of the gas station can get in trouble if they inflate their prices after an disaster or emergency.

There is no expectation that a taxi or an Uber or even gas will be there when you need it but there is an expectation that people will not take advantage of the situation and profiteer off the disaster or emergency.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

i have no problem with "gouging" if it's based off dramatic increases in demand. high prices cure high prices. if the price for a commodity is high, it serves as a fantastic motivator for suppliers to get more of that commodity to whatever given market place is paying for it, thus eventually creating lower prices from over supply. 

what's better? a more expensive ride to compensate the stupid driver for the insane risk and liability he is assuming or no ride at all b/c those are the only two choices.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

heynow321 said:


> i have no problem with "gouging" if it's based off dramatic increases in demand. high prices cure high prices. if the price for a commodity is high, it serves as a fantastic motivator for suppliers to get more of that commodity to whatever given market place is paying for it, thus eventually creating lower prices from over supply.
> 
> what's better? a more expensive ride to compensate the stupid driver for the insane risk and liability he is assuming or no ride at all b/c those are the only two choices.


There are laws against gouging in most places so while you may make a higher profit, the government will attempt to recover as much of that profit plus additional punitive amounts if they can, and they should in my openion. Not only that you have some very bad PR to deal with if you show that the company tried to profit off a tragedy.

What you propose is not the only two choices they can and in fact they did offer normal pricing, and it worked out, people got their rides home that they needed from what I have seen and drivers and the companies did not profit more than normal to make it happen.


----------



## hulksmash (Apr 26, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> That would actually be bad PR I believe as it shows that the drivers are profiting because of a tragedy, that their motivation is not to be helpful but to chase extra earnings. By showing them responding at normal pay it shows everyone pulling together and helping the community.


Of course drivers motivation is to chase extra earnings. Even first responders won't work for free, the city has to pay them overtime. They also get compensated for the inherent risks, for which drivers don't. I don't think the public would care if the drivers profited as long as it wasn't at the riders expense.

I actually think it would be great PR for Uber if they paid drivers extra without collecting extra from riders. They'd look good for the public since they didn't jack up prices, and because they enticed additional drivers to come help. They would also look good with drivers for compensating them for the added risk and chaos.

What Uber did was bend over for the public more than necessary (giving rides for free instead of just keeping them at base rate) while underpaying drivers based on demand, and potentially creating a shortage of drivers. Lyft had the right idea by just shutting off prime time...but again they would also create a driver shortage unless they offered up some incentive to the drivers.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

hulksmash said:


> Of course drivers motivation is to chase extra earnings. Even first responders won't work for free, the city has to pay them overtime. They also get compensated for the inherent risks, for which drivers don't. I don't think the public would care if the drivers profited as long as it wasn't at the riders expense.
> 
> I actually think it would be great PR for Uber if they paid drivers extra without collecting extra from riders. They'd look good for the public since they didn't jack up prices, and because they enticed additional drivers to come help. They would also look good with drivers for compensating them for the added risk and chaos.
> 
> What Uber did was bend over for the public more than necessary (giving rides for free instead of just keeping them at base rate) while underpaying drivers based on demand, and potentially creating a shortage of drivers. Lyft had the right idea by just shutting off prime time...but again they would also create a driver shortage unless they offered up some incentive to the drivers.


I have not seen people complaining about being stranded, so it would seem that compensation was high enough to get enough drivers to do what was needed.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

hulksmash said:


> e...but again they would also create a driver shortage unless they offered up some incentive to the drivers.


exactly. how many drivers do you think hightailed it BACK to the scene to pick up more people when they figured out there was an active shooter? only the most brain dead among us....


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

Disgusted Driver said:


> That's wonderful and all but what about the drivers? It's great pr for them but the drivers are bearing most of the expense.


As a LV driver, I have zero problem with driving at base fare during these dark hours. There are plenty of us drivers that don't need to be paid surge to get out there and get not only the victims but visitors and locals moving.

Honestly, if this were something foreseeable like a hurricane, I might feel differently. Since we weren't hit by a hurricane, I can't say for certain.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

heynow321 said:


> exactly. how many drivers do you think hightailed it BACK to the scene to pick up more people when they figured out there was an active shooter? only the most brain dead among us....


I don't think the city wanted them to be close enough to be in danger in fact I would say that would have been causing a major problem for the police.


----------



## hulksmash (Apr 26, 2016)

PrestonT said:


> As a LV driver, I have zero problem with driving at base fare during these dark hours. There are plenty of us drivers that don't need to be paid surge to get out there and get not only the victims but visitors and locals moving.
> 
> Honestly, if this were something foreseeable like a hurricane, I might feel differently. Since we weren't hit by a hurricane, I can't say for certain.


Unfortunately there are enough drivers that don't need surge to drive at normal times, but that's neither here nor there. I might do it for base too if I was near the area. Would you drive a long distance out of the way to drive the area knowing the dangers and for base rate?

Do you drive for Lyft? When they said they were communicating the situation with drivers, what did they say? Did they ask you to go pick up riders without any added incentive?


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

hulksmash said:


> Unfortunately there are enough drivers that don't need surge to drive at normal times, but that's neither here nor there. I might do it for base too if I was near the area. Would you drive a long distance out of the way to drive the area knowing the dangers and for base rate?
> 
> Do you drive for Lyft? When they said they were communicating the situation with drivers, what did they say? Did they ask you to go pick up riders without any added incentive?


Well, see that's a little unfair, because there is no such thing as long distance and out of the way in Las Vegas.

But to take your hypothetical, let's say there was a major event in Primm 35 miles out of town. They badly need Uber drivers out there to bring riders in to LV and safety. Uber is comping the rides and paying base fare. Yes, I would go out there and drive a car full in at base fare. Would I risk a sniper to get to them (back to hypotheticals)? No, I wouldn't.

Lyft's message via text: "Active whooting reported near strip. Avoid driving in or around strip until Las Vegas Police declares the strip safe."


----------



## hulksmash (Apr 26, 2016)

PrestonT said:


> Well, see that's a little unfair, because there is no such thing as long distance and out of the way in Las Vegas.
> 
> But to take your hypothetical, let's say there was a major event in Primm 35 miles out of town. They badly need Uber drivers out there to bring riders in to LV and safety. Uber is comping the rides and paying base fare. Yes, I would go out there and drive a car full in at base fare. Would I risk a sniper to get to them (back to hypotheticals)? No, I wouldn't.
> 
> Lyft's message via text: "Active whooting reported near strip. Avoid driving in or around strip until Las Vegas Police declares the strip safe."


That is noble of you to want to do that, but the TNCs shouldn't rely on drivers charity to get rides fulfilled at high demand, emergency or not, especially since drivers aren't employed by them.

As far as Lyft, what I'm wondering is if they sent a text to drivers asking to give rides after it was safe to do so. Like when they send the "get over here" texts for airport rides.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

hulksmash said:


> That is noble of you to want to do that, but the TNCs shouldn't rely on drivers charity to get rides fulfilled at high demand, emergency or not, especially since drivers aren't employed by them.
> 
> As far as Lyft, what I'm wondering is if they sent a text to drivers asking to give rides after it was safe to do so. Like when they send the "get over here" texts for airport rides.


They are not relying on charity they are paying just as they normally do. They can suppress surge anytime they please especially now that what the rider pays and what the driver receive are not connected. I am sure if they saw that there were not enough drivers they would have done a surge, but the amount seemed to be enough. I wonder if the rush of drivers into the area trying to help and make money did not naturally suppress the surge anyways.


----------



## hulksmash (Apr 26, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> They are not relying on charity they are paying just as they normally do. They can suppress surge anytime they please especially now that what the rider pays and what the driver receive are not connected. I am sure if they saw that there were not enough drivers they would have done a surge, but the amount seemed to be enough. I wonder if the rush of drivers into the area trying to help and make money did not naturally suppress the surge anyways.


I say charity because driving at base rate under normal conditions is a break even or losing proposition. Never mind driving from a long distance to a traffic congested area. But yes Uber does rely on it and usually gets it.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

Tips have been going really well since introduction of in-app in Las Vegas, enough to offset the loss of the limited surge I saw before that. I'm as mad as anyone that they are charging pax surge while paying us peanuts under normal circumstances, but I fight the battles I can win.

That said, I would view your scenario not as a business decision, but as a humanitarian one. My thoughts would be of helping people, not calculating my potential income. I wouldn't judge anyone who sees it differently. We are all doing this for various personal reasons.


----------



## Jo3030 (Jan 2, 2016)

Heard about people reporting drivers cuz they were mad at the surge.
LOL
And getting them deactivated unfairly.


----------



## hulksmash (Apr 26, 2016)

Jo3030 said:


> Heard about people reporting drivers cuz they were mad at the surge.
> LOL
> And getting them deactivated unfairly.


It's cause they saw them there not online at base rate and waiting to go online once it surged


----------



## lubi571 (Nov 26, 2015)

Jo3030 said:


> Heard about people reporting drivers cuz they were mad at the surge.
> LOL
> And getting them deactivated unfairly.





hulksmash said:


> It's cause they saw them there not online at base rate and waiting to go online once it surged


You're both wrong. Surge was stopped by both companies as soon as they realized what was going on. Drivers that were out there did a great job and gave free rides also. Monday all day no surge at all (could have been as high as 5x or more any other day). Pings were up to 27 minutes away and drivers took them getting people back to strip hotels from suburb hotels. Read the Vegas forum for more accurate information.


----------



## hulksmash (Apr 26, 2016)

lubi571 said:


> You're both wrong. Surge was stopped by both companies as soon as they realized what was going on. Drivers that were out there did a great job and gave free rides also. Monday all day no surge at all (could have been as high as 5x or more any other day). Pings were up to 27 minutes away and drivers took them getting people back to strip hotels from suburb hotels. Read the Vegas forum for more accurate information.


I was being sarcastic as was the poster before me.......in all seriousness that's great that drivers were willing to help out even at base..I just hate that the TNCs are getting great publicity for this on the drivers backs...they should thank their lucky stars that they had drivers willing to help. A bonus from them is due to you guys, even if you didn't do it for that reason. At least some kind of recognition.

My hope is that they don't mistake drivers kindness for weakness and try to exploit them for low fares during future non-emergency high demand. They do already to some extent, but now they could be like "drivers worked for cheap during this chaotic time, they'll do it any other time too"


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

hulksmash said:


> My hope is that they don't mistake drivers kindness for weakness and try to exploit them for low fares during future non-emergency high demand. They do already to some extent, but now they could be like "drivers worked for cheap during this chaotic time, they'll do it any other time too"


this is the exact dangerous precedent that is being set. and you know if something happens to you, your car, or both, boober will NOT be stepping up to help you. keep that in mind.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

heynow321 said:


> this is the exact dangerous precedent that is being set. and you know if something happens to you, your car, or both, boober will NOT be stepping up to help you. keep that in mind.


Its a good precedent to set in my opinion.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

hulksmash said:


> I was being sarcastic as was the poster before me.......in all seriousness that's great that drivers were willing to help out even at base..I just hate that the TNCs are getting great publicity for this on the drivers backs...they should thank their lucky stars that they had drivers willing to help. A bonus from them is due to you guys, even if you didn't do it for that reason. At least some kind of recognition.
> 
> My hope is that they don't mistake drivers kindness for weakness and try to exploit them for low fares during future non-emergency high demand. They do already to some extent, but now they could be like "drivers worked for cheap during this chaotic time, they'll do it any other time too"


Uber gave anyone who was online Sunday night $50 UberEats credit. I wasn't driving so I'm outside that.

Lyft offered a $30 bonus to ALL LV Lyft drivers. Only requirement is give 2 rides in the week, presumably to weed out those who no longer drive for Lyft.


----------



## lubi571 (Nov 26, 2015)

hulksmash said:


> I was being sarcastic as was the poster before me.......in all seriousness that's great that drivers were willing to help out even at base..I just hate that the TNCs are getting great publicity for this on the drivers backs...they should thank their lucky stars that they had drivers willing to help. A bonus from them is due to you guys, even if you didn't do it for that reason. At least some kind of recognition.
> 
> My hope is that they don't mistake drivers kindness for weakness and try to exploit them for low fares during future non-emergency high demand. They do already to some extent, but now they could be like "drivers worked for cheap during this chaotic time, they'll do it any other time too"





heynow321 said:


> this is the exact dangerous precedent that is being set. and you know if something happens to you, your car, or both, boober will NOT be stepping up to help you. keep that in mind.


What drivers did Sunday and Monday in Vegas has nothing to do with Uber/Lyft or setting precedent. It's simply how individuals react to a crisis. No right or wrong, credit and no credit just individuals taking some action.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> this is the exact dangerous precedent that is being set. and you know if something happens to you, your car, or both, boober will NOT be stepping up to help you. keep that in mind.


Ummm, they are already doing it, and were before these recent crises. That's what upfront was all about.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Uberfunitis said:


> Its a good precedent to set in my opinion.


you think it's good that the public expects and treats uber drivers like a public utility that should always be available to them regardless of risk or danger to the driver?

unbelievably stupid.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

heynow321 said:


> you think it's good that the public expects and treats uber drivers like a public utility that should always be available to them regardless of risk or danger to the driver?
> 
> unbelievably stupid.


To be honest for the entire ride share gig to work there does have to be that expectation, and drivers were not in any real danger after the event when people were leaving, the police will block off everything in a very short time. If I do not reasonably expect that I will easily find a ride home at a reasonable price than there is no reason to take Uber in the first place.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> you think it's good that the public expects and treats uber drivers like a public utility that should always be available to them regardless of risk or danger to the driver?
> 
> unbelievably stupid.


I didn't feel like a public utility. Riders were very grateful that we were out there. I expect it was even more so Sunday night.

There are some people that see the world in terms involving only themselves. I'm not one of those, and I don't judge those who are. We are all what we are. I see in crisis an opportunity of being a member of my community and serving a cause greater and more important than myself.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Uberfunitis said:


> To be honest for the entire ride share gig to work there does have to be that expectation, and drivers were not in any real danger after the event when people were leaving, the police will block off everything in a very short time. If I do not reasonably expect that I will easily find a ride home at a reasonable price than there is no reason to take Uber in the first place.


uh yes these are still plenty of reasons. to think you're going to get a ride cheap during times of high demand is plain moronic.



PrestonT said:


> I didn't feel like a public utility. Riders were very grateful that we were out there. I expect it was even more so Sunday night.
> 
> There are some people that see the world in terms involving only themselves. I'm not one of those, and I don't judge those who are. We are all what we are. I see in crisis an opportunity of being a member of my community and serving a cause greater and more important than myself.


see how gracious they are when it comes time to replace your car.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> uh yes these are still plenty of reasons. to think you're going to get a ride cheap during times of high demand is plain moronic.
> 
> see how gracious they are when it comes time to replace your car.


If I got in my car as a citizen and rushed to a crisis to help, no one would compensate me, either. I just think it's highly narcissistic to call people stupid for coming to the aid of their community.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

heynow321 said:


> uh yes these are still plenty of reasons. to think you're going to get a ride cheap during times of high demand is plain moronic.
> 
> see how gracious they are when it comes time to replace your car.


Time is on my side I can wait until high demand is gone.

People should be putting money aside to replace their car with after each ride that is what the entire per mile deduction is all about.



PrestonT said:


> If I got in my car as a citizen and rushed to a crisis to help, no one would compensate me, either. I just think it's highly narcissistic to call people stupid for coming to the aid of their community.


When I was younger I was on a volunteer rescue squad we would respond in our own personal vehicles all the time to emergencies we never got money or compensation for doing such other than the knowledge that you are helping your community.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

PrestonT said:


> If I got in my car as a citizen and rushed to a crisis to help, no one would compensate me, either. I just think it's highly narcissistic to call people stupid for coming to the aid of their community.


You think that community would rally to help you as an individual? I know I know you millennials are all about feelz over reelz and it makes you feel good. At the end of the day you're putting yourself in an extremely risky and vulnerable position as well as implanting a dangerous assumption in the minds of passengers. Want to help? Donate blood


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

There is nothing dangerous in assuming that there will be a rideshare available when you need it. I can count on having one within five minutes anytime I call it where I live and go to often.


----------



## Lolinator (Jun 21, 2017)

Disgusted Driver said:


> That's wonderful and all but what about the drivers? It's great pr for them but the drivers are bearing most of the expense.


LOLOL


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> There are laws against gouging in most places so while you may make a higher profit, the government will attempt to recover as much of that profit plus additional punitive amounts if they can, and they should in my openion.


That sort of mentality is the exact cause of water shortages after disasters and in other countries long food lines and famines. They cause shortages to last for weeks or months relying on charity and government, in the name of stopping profiteers that may have ended a situation within days with higher prices at first and leveling off eventually with normal prices before the shortage would have even been stemmed using the "stop the gouging" approach.

I think that mentality is best summed up as "It's better we all starve together than let the rich be served first and the poor second!"

"It worked out" is subjective. In places of famine some say it "worked out" and the casualties were "acceptable". The government food trucks "worked" because eventually people got food after a month! The fact is, that supply will always be better when people are permitted to pay the market value instead of there being a price ceiling.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> You think that community would rally to help you as an individual? I know I know you millennials are all about feelz over reelz and it makes you feel good. At the end of the day you're putting yourself in an extremely risky and vulnerable position as well as implanting a dangerous assumption in the minds of passengers. Want to help? Donate blood


I'm 55. But feel free to label me in whatever way suits your worldview. A whole generation lined up at military recruiting stations in 1941 and 1942 to help defend cowardly draft dodgers from a foreign threat. Many of them, too young to join, lied about their ages to get out there and help. I guess they were millennials, too.

Yes, I would put myself at a degree of risk so that self-servers like you can be safer. But that's not what this discussion is about. It's about getting out and assisting people in the aftermath, after the threat has been neutralized by someone who doesn't hide in a basement and call those who help idiots.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Did you just equate people who fought in World War II to modern day millennials ? Jesus...


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> Did you just equate people who fought in World War II to modern day millennials ? Jesus...


Wow, you really can't comprehend what you read, can you?


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> That sort of mentality is the exact cause of water shortages after disasters and in other countries long food lines and famines. They cause shortages to last for weeks or months relying on charity and government, in the name of stopping profiteers that may have ended a situation within days with higher prices at first and leveling off eventually with normal prices before the shortage would have even been stemmed using the "stop the gouging" approach.
> 
> I think that mentality is best summed up as "It's better we all starve together than let the rich be served first and the poor second!"


Nope sorry I do not buy it I have been threw several major natural disasters you get threw it by pulling together and working as a community.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> Nope sorry I do not buy it I have been threw several major natural disasters you get threw it by pulling together and working as a community.


Sorry, basic economics 101 says otherwise. It's incredibly obvious that shortages of food and water are prolonged by these anti-gouging laws. But it is okay, because "it worked out" because people "eventually" got stuff when the government programs kicked in and volunteers brought stuff in. Long after it would have been in a free economy. Even the POOR will get faster service in a free economy. Too bad the closet communists hate the rich so much that the poor must suffer in the name of "fairness".


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Sorry, basic economics 101 says otherwise. It's incredibly obvious that shortages of food and water are prolonged by these anti-gouging laws. But it is okay, because "it worked out" because people "eventually" got stuff when the government programs kicked in and volunteers brought stuff in. Long after it would have been in a free economy. Even the POOR will get faster service in a free economy. Too bad the closet communists hate the rich so much that the poor must suffer in the name of "fairness".


That makes absolutely no sense at all increasing the price would not get the materials there any quicker. They literally fill the shelves as quick as they can get the trucks down and yes they are making a profit in doing so the same profit they would have made had they sold those items at other times. The only thing that allowing gouging would do is make sure that the rich were taken care of first and make all others wait. The profit motive is not what is holding everything back because it is still there I have never heard a store say anything like well I would put water on the shelves but you know the pay is just not enough to make it worth my while. They say stuff instead like we are expecting a truck in at x time.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> That makes absolutely no sense at all increasing the price would not get the materials there any quicker. They literally fill the shelves as quick as they can get the trucks down and yes they are making a profit in doing so the same profit they would have made had they sold those items at other times. The only thing that allowing gouging would do is make sure that the rich were taken care of first and make all others wait. The profit motive is not what is holding everything back because it is still there I have never heard a store say anything like well I would put water on the shelves but you know the pay is just not enough to make it worth my while. They say stuff instead like we are expecting a truck in at x time.


Maybe in a fascist fantasy world where only one entity has a government granted monopoly to sell water through official supply lines.

People drive trucks down to disasters with water to sell and they get fined and turned away by the government. Net result is that people don't drive water down. That water would be going to people who need it if it weren't for the government getting in the way. Walmart might be stocking their shelves as quickly as they can get product in but water from Joe Bob's truck is just as drinkable.

I've got a lot of emergency rations stocked away. If disaster strikes I'm not giving that stuff out for free, I'm keeping it for myself. But if there were no price gouging laws I could sell some for the right price. If there were no price gouging laws I could drive my truck myself 300 miles with a bed full of water. Standard mileage rate though says that's $300+ in expenses round trip. I'm obviously not going to do that if I can only sell a bottle of water for ten cents or I get a fine or go to jail for "price gouging". If I can sell those water bottles for $10 each though, it might be worth it. That's extra water being pumped in to the area with shortage over and above whatever is being brought in by relief efforts, and if I can sell my bottles for $10 each, my neighbor might try it too. Enough trucks bring it in and supply and demand will bring the prices down because of free market forces created by competition and reduced demand from people who already got water. Eventually the price might go down to $1 per bottle. Still a 10x price surge instead of a 100x price surge. Still will bring more in. Maybe it will not be profitable any more for me to bring it in on my pickup truck, but it still will be profitable for big rigs and water tankers to bring in large loads. When enough big rigs come in eventually they will stop coming when the profit goes away... and why would the profit go away? Maybe because finally Walmart is stocked up for that scheduled delivery you expect everyone to be forced to wait for and now people can get water for 10 cents a bottle again (or get their free handouts, which now need to go to far less people thanks to the rich already being served instead of them having to take up free handouts that the poor could have used), so they don't need to buy at surge pricing.

Heck, even if the big box store was waiting for shipments, who supplies them? Think they could get supplied faster if they offered a higher price to suppliers? Seems at least a tiny bit likely, doesn't it? If they could charge more for customers they could pay more for suppliers. Of course they wouldn't because profit is such a dirty word that people these days would rather die of thirst than be grateful for water at a slight price increase. That's why they have to buy from Joe's Water Truck since Joe Bob doesn't have a reputation on the line to worry about.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Maybe in a communist fantasy world where only one entity has a government granted monopoly to sell water through official supply lines.
> 
> People drive trucks down to disasters with water to sell and they get fined and turned away by the government. Net result is that people don't drive water down. That water would be going to people who need it if it weren't for the government getting in the way. Walmart might be stocking their shelves as quickly as they can get product in but water from Joe Bob's truck is just as drinkable.


With the exception of perhaps puerto rico what you are talking about just does not happen. There are not shortages, there may be long lines due to power being out and only being able to bring a small number of people into the store at a time but nobody is going without needed supplies in the mainland after a disaster it just has never happened that I have seen.

You can keep your $10 water really there is no need for you to bring it as there are plenty more than willing to do what is needed and not take advantage of the situation.


----------



## hulksmash (Apr 26, 2016)

As an independent contractor I would be okay with anti-surge policies during high demand if we were allowed to operate at a profit during periods of low to moderate demand. The reason grocery stores and gas stations can afford to sell items at normal prices during high demand is because unlike Uber drivers they can still make a profit on the goods they sell during normal times. 

If a grocery store, gas station, mechanic, any merchant operated under the rideshare model, they'd have someone else dictating to them the prices they could sell their products at during low and high demand. If they had to sell at a loss during low demand, they'd close their doors and not reopen until demand kicked in and they were allowed to sell higher. Then once demand went down they'd close back up, with they cycle repeating itself. 

Rideshare works the same way, except the merchants would know when they are losing money unlike the driver who "sells" his services at base rate. If merchants were dumb enough to sell their products at a loss all the time, the public would come to expect those insanely low rates everyday, disaster or no disaster. Since rideshare drivers are that dumb, that is exactly what has happened.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

hulksmash said:


> As an independent contractor I would be okay with anti-surge policies during high demand if we were allowed to operate at a profit during periods of low to moderate demand. The reason grocery stores and gas stations can afford to sell items at normal prices during high demand is because unlike Uber drivers they can still make a profit on the goods they sell during normal times.
> 
> If a grocery store, gas station, mechanic, any merchant operated under the rideshare model, they'd have someone else dictating to them the prices they could sell their products at during low and high demand. If they had to sell at a loss during low demand, they'd close their doors and not reopen until demand kicked in and they were allowed to sell higher. Then once demand went down they'd close back up, with they cycle repeating itself.
> 
> Rideshare works the same way, except the merchants would know when they are losing money unlike the driver who "sells" his services at base rate. If merchants were dumb enough to sell their products at a loss all the time, the public would come to expect those insanely low rates everyday, disaster or no disaster. Since rideshare drivers are that dumb, that is exactly what has happened.


You don't make a profit with Uber? Granted I don't make as much as I would like but I do not operate in the red during normal times.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> With the exception of perhaps puerto rico what you are talking about just does not happen. There are not shortages, there may be long lines due to power being out and only being able to bring a small number of people into the store at a time but nobody is going without needed supplies in the mainland after a disaster it just has never happened that I have seen.
> 
> You can keep your $10 water really there is no need for you to bring it as there are plenty more than willing to do what is needed and not take advantage of the situation.


Makes no sense. If what you are saying is true, why do you need anti-gouging laws?
The water smugglers only come because they have willing customers. There are willing customers... because official supply lines are unable to meet demand. This is also known as a... wait for it... a shortage. All the people who are buying are paying a price they are willing to pay. No one is being taken advantage of... just a bunch of whiny social justice warriors think it is unfair that people who are rich can get water while poorer people can't afford to.

And a bunch of confused people think it is a zero-sum game where rich people getting water mean that poor go without. It is not so. When people have money, it provides an incentive to bring more of a needed item into a high demand area.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

Trafficat said:


> Makes no sense. If what you are saying is true, why do you need anti-gouging laws?
> The water smugglers only come because they have willing customers. There are willing customers... because official supply lines are unable to meet demand. This is also known as a... wait for it... a shortage. All the people who are buying are paying a price they are willing to pay. No one is being taken advantage of... just a bunch of whiny social justice warriors think it is unfair that people who are rich can get water while poorer people can't afford to.


Never mind the fact that the rich were watching the whole thing from out of state or country.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

PrestonT said:


> Never mind the fact that the rich were watching the whole thing from out of state or country.


A rich person is a person who is willing and able to pay a higher price than normal and a poor person is a person who unwilling or unable to afford any water at any price higher than normal. If there weren't people willing to pay more than normal for water, there would be no water smugglers.

If there were no people able to pay any more for water it would be a problem that solves itself without any need to prosecute water smugglers.

Some people cannot afford water at all and must rely on free water. Stopping water smugglers does not help these people. It only delays them getting water because if the water has to be free, even those willing to pay for it will get to wait in the same line making that line longer.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Makes no sense. If what you are saying is true, why do you need anti-gouging laws?
> The water smugglers only come because they have willing customers. There are willing customers... because official supply lines are unable to meet demand. This is also known as a... wait for it... a shortage. All the people who are buying are paying a price they are willing to pay. No one is being taken advantage of... just a bunch of whiny social justice warriors think it is unfair that people who are rich can get water while poorer people can't afford to.


All the stores would charge more if they were allowed and people would pay it because there would be no choice. That extra pay would not fill the shelves of the stores any quicker though.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

Trafficat said:


> A rich person is a person who is willing and able to pay a higher price than normal and a poor person is a person who unwilling or unable to afford any water at any price higher than normal. If there weren't people willing to pay more than normal for water, there would be no water smugglers.
> 
> If there were no people able to pay any more for water it would be a problem that solves itself without any need to prosecute water smugglers.
> 
> Some people cannot afford water at all and must rely on free water. Stopping water smugglers does not help these people. It only delays them getting water because if the water has to be free, even those willing to pay for it will get to wait in the same line making that line longer.


Okay, I can go with your clarification....


----------



## hulksmash (Apr 26, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> You don't make a profit with Uber? Granted I don't make as much as I would like but I do not operate in the red during normal times.


 Do you know what you're true operating costs are? If you only drive base and no surge/boost, it is possible to do so.

I make a profit only because I wait until I am allowed to "sell" my services at high enough rate to generate one (aka surge), or I use destination filter, and I don't accept non-profitable pings. If I drove base rate all day, a true accounting of my costs would show a loss. Maybe I could eek out $3-5hr, but that's not what anyone worth their salt strives for. In my example, the merchants would still close down at such a measly rate of return.



Uberfunitis said:


> All the stores would charge more if they were allowed and people would pay it because there would be no choice. That extra pay would not fill the shelves of the stores any quicker though.


They would since the stores could then afford to pay for faster delivery.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

hulksmash said:


> Do you know what you're true operating costs are? If you only drive base and no surge/boost, it is possible to do so.
> 
> I make a profit only because I wait until I am allowed to "sell" my services at high enough rate to generate one (aka surge), or I use destination filter, and I don't accept non-profitable pings. If I drove base rate all day, a true accounting of my costs would show a loss. Maybe I could eek out $3-5hr, but that's not what anyone worth their salt strives for. In my example, the merchants would still close down at such a measly rate of return.
> 
> They would since the stores could then afford to pay for faster delivery.


I drive at base all the time I actually actively avoid surges and I am still profitable. Could I do better yes I could but I am content with Uber for what it is. I do not fault drivers who do the surges at all if that is what works for you more power to you. I just don't think there should be surges during disasters and we will likely never see eye to eye on that.

Money is as I said not the limiting factor hell everyone is getting stuff there as quick as they can already throwing money at the problem does not hurry it up it just wastes more money. I for one am glad that they take a hard line on anti gouging I would like for them to pull the business license of anyone attempting to do such first offense.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> All the stores would charge more if they were allowed and people would pay it because there would be no choice. That extra pay would not fill the shelves of the stores any quicker though.


Non-sense. Total and utter non-sense. Do you really believe that? Let us compare two situations, the situation of Smalltown, USA and Dumbtown, USA.

In Smalltown, the free market is allowed to work. In Dumbtown, price for water is fixed at ten cents a bottle for sellers and $0.05 cents a bottle for distributors.

Let us pretend that Smallstore is the only store in Smalltown, USA. Price of water is normally $0.10 a bottle, but suddenly there is a shortage and half the bottles sell out in 30 minutes.... They ask their distributors for as much water as they can at $0.05 a bottle, the normal rate, and the distributors say we can send X by tomorrow. They realize they will sell out in 30 minutes, so they decide to charge $100 a bottle of water. 99% of the town says "screw that $100 price tag" but Smallstore sells 100% of their stock at $100 a bottle by the next 3 hours. The next morning when they get X bottles in, realizing their stock will only last 3 hours, they scramble and say, "hey we will buy water from anyone at $50 a bottle". Smallstore issues e-mail blasts to their suppliers and on their website offering to buy water at $50 a bottle. Trucking companies from the other side of the country now ship it in, whereas before only a handful of distributors found it profitable to send the water a short distance from then nearest town.

Also, others see on TV how people are buying water for $100 a bottle... they drive down with their own bottles to make a profit. Eventually all the people willing to buy water at $100 a bottle have already bought water. Others simply will not or cannot buy water at that price... but now you have a bunch of guys with trucks with water bottles and Smallstore does too. The products languish on the shelves, while some guy around the block sells water for $50 a bottle... smallstore sees that people are buying at $50 a bottle and lowers their prices.... Eventually all the people willing to pay $50 a bottle buy a bottle, and no bottles sell on the store shelves at smallstore... yet on the street corner some guy is selling water for $25 a bottle... Get the idea?

Okay, now let's look at dumbtown...

The waterlines break. The tap stops running. People rush out to Dumbstore, buying 100% of their water within hours. Dumbstore tells its suppliers "Send us all the water you can, we'll pay you $0.05 a bottle". The distributors get all their employees making $20 an hour on their gas guzzling trucks and they determine they can send X amount and still make a profit.

A water smuggler says, "Boy, this looks good, let's try selling water at $100 a bottle" At the border they are arrested and the police issue a warning broadcast over the news, "Anyone trying to exploit thirsty people for profit will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!"

Dumbstore gets X amount of water the next day. The water sells out in 60 minutes. X amount of water arrives the next day. It sells out in 60 minutes. The next day, X amount of water arrives, and it sells out in 60 minutes. Get the idea? In Dumbtown the water supply is X/day. In smalltown price surges and then supply increases. Likely, over a period of 20 days, less water has entered Dumbtown than Smalltown had in the first 24 hours!

But don't worry, Dumbtown is getting some relief efforts from government agents paid $100/hr flying multi million dollar helicopters and will be distributing enough water to stop people from dying of thirst in 1 week if they are willing to wait in a long line. Good thing that water is "free" and no one has to pay for it!  Yeah, in dumbtown the rich guys lost all their tomato plant. Some people probably think they should be in the Gulag anyway for wanting to use water on their tomato plants while poor people can't even boil their beans! In one month, in Dumbtown the rich guys can start their tomato plants again, whereas in Smalltown they never had to lose them to begin with and everyone probably had water in a few days.

In parts of the world without these extravagent government spending, people often die from these shortages.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Non-sense. Total and utter non-sense. Do you really believe that? Let us compare two situations, the situation of Smalltown, USA and Dumbtown, USA.
> 
> In Smalltown, the free market is allowed to work. In Dumbtown, price for water is fixed at ten cents a bottle for sellers and $0.05 cents a bottle for distributors.
> 
> ...


The only problem with your assessment is that everyone is pulling together already for a disaster you literally have people all over the country bringing it in already just to help those in need at a disaster.


----------



## hulksmash (Apr 26, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> I drive at base all the time I actually actively avoid surges and I am still profitable. Could I do better yes I could but I am content with Uber for what it is. I do not fault drivers who do the surges at all if that is what works for you more power to you. I just don't think there should be surges during disasters and we will likely never see eye to eye on that.
> 
> Money is as I said not the limiting factor hell everyone is getting stuff there as quick as they can already throwing money at the problem does not hurry it up it just wastes more money. I for one am glad that they take a hard line on anti gouging I would like for them to pull the business license of anyone attempting to do such first offense.


 Do you do the opposite of what drivers do? Do you turn your app off during surge? Docyou ignore or cancel high surge requests when they happen to find you? I don't understand your rationale for turning down higher fares in favor of lower ones.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

hulksmash said:


> Do you do the opposite of what drivers do? Do you turn your app off during surge? Docyou ignore or cancel high surge requests when they happen to find you? I don't understand your rationale for turning down higher fares in favor of lower ones.


I usually do not drive during surge times or attempt to be in areas that I know will be surging at a given time. There is a reason that it is surging and I just really dont want to put up with the extra hassle nor do I need to so I dont.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> The only problem with your assessment is that everyone is pulling together already for a disaster you literally have people all over the country bringing it in already just to help those in need at a disaster.


So then why the need to punish people for price gouging if there is plenty of free water to go around? Wouldn't that just make anyone buying from a price gouger dumb if they could just go around the corner and get it for free? Are they not willingly parting with their money? Maybe they WANT the convenience of not having to go around the corner to find a good Samaritan. For what possible reason should the guy who wants to charge money be fined if there are plenty of places to get free water from?

Either there is plenty of water to go around or there isn't. Some say we need anti-price gouging laws because people take advantage of others who cannot get water... then you say that no one needs to bring in water at charge because there is plenty of free water to go around... so which is it? Desperate people forced to pay high prices, or plenty to go around?


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> So then why the need to punish people for price gouging if there is plenty of free water to go around? Wouldn't that just make anyone buying from a price gouger dumb if they could just go around the corner and get it for free? Are they not willingly parting with their money? Maybe they WANT the convenience of not having to go around the corner to find a good Samaritan. For what possible reason should the guy who wants to charge money be fined if there are plenty of places to get free water from?
> 
> Either there is plenty of water to go around or there isn't. Some say we need anti-price gouging laws because people take advantage of others who cannot get water... then you say that no one needs to bring it water at charge because there is plenty of free water to go around... so which is it? Desperate people forced to pay high prices, or plenty to go around?


First the water is not free people are able to charge a normal price for it and do so. Businesses are businesses if allowed to they all would jack up their prices to take advantage of the situation I for one have no problem with that not being allowed during the small amount of time of a disaster in fact I am glad that they do stop price gouging during disasters.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> First the water is not free people are able to charge a normal price for it and do so.


So people bring in water from all over the country and charge ten cents a bottle? So let's say I'm a guy in Michigan and there is a disaster in Florida. I drive down to Miami to sell bottles at ten cents a bottle? Why even bother charging ten cents a bottle? Guy from michigan is operating at a huge loss. Might as well give the bottles away for free because the cost of the water is insignifcant compared to the gas.



> Businesses are businesses if allowed to they all would jack up their prices to take advantage of the situation I for one have no problem with that not being allowed during the small amount of time of a disaster in fact I am glad that they do.


Why are you glad? Why would you be upset if they increased prices if there are plenty of people who will bring water in to sell at the normal price from all over the country? If Smallstore increases the price to $100 a bottle yet guys from 1000 miles away drove in to sell water at ten cents a bottle, how many folks are buying at Smallstore? Would you buy a $100 bottle at SmallStore if there was a guy standing right outside selling water for ten cents a bottle?

If what you are saying is really true, chances are their stock isn't moving off the shelves.

What possible benefit to society is there to your proposed laws to prosecute people for selling higher?


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> So people bring in water from all over the country and charge ten cents a bottle? So let's say I'm a guy in Michigan and there is a disaster in Florida. I drive down to Miami to sell bottles at ten cents a bottle? Why even bother charging ten cents a bottle? Guy from michigan is operating at a huge loss.
> 
> Why are you glad? Why would you be upset if they increased prices if there are plenty of people who will bring water in to sell at the normal price from all over the country? If Smallstore increases the price to $100 a bottle yet guys from 1000 miles away drove in to sell water at ten cents a bottle, how many folks are buying at Smallstore? Would you buy a $100 bottle at SmallStore if there was a guy standing right outside selling water for ten cents a bottle?
> 
> ...


I wish that I shopped where you do I can never find water for 10c per bottle.

I am glad that they prevent it because I do not want to see people taken advantage of during a disaster. Allowing market forces to work during a disaster would price many out of being able to buy things that they need, and I do not want to see that.

anti gouging laws are not laws that I am proposing they are laws already on the books.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> I wish that I shopped where you do I can never find water for 10c per bottle.
> 
> I am glad that they prevent it because I do not want to see people taken advantage of during a disaster. Allowing market forces to work during a disaster would price many out of being able to buy things that they need, and I do not want to see that.
> 
> anti gouging laws are not laws that I am proposing they are laws already on the books.


How are people taken advantage of if there is plenty of normal priced water to go around as you said? 10 cents a bottle is the price of water where I live at most places for store brand water. Maybe add a couple of cents for Desani.

And not every place has a price gouging law. Mainly only places in the South or leftist areas have such laws.

And in places where such laws exist, people are prosecuted. There would be no one to prosecute if the system worked as well as you claimed at solving shortages, because there would be no profit in bringing in water at elevated prices when there is plenty of water at "normal" prices. And the black market prices these smugglers charge is probably even higher than it would be if anyone could bring in water at any price without fear of prosecution.

The fact is, compare areas with "price-gouging" laws to areas without and there is almost always, without exception, delayed response and increased suffering as a result of these laws. Competition quickly brings prices down. My ECON101 professor went over numerous examples. These laws create the proverbial bread-line type situation where those who are first in line gain access to a limited resource. In the free market, those willing to pay the most get access to a limited resource. The fundamental difference is, in the free market there are incentives to increase supply, whereas with a price ceiling, the incentive is lacking. http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com/price-ceiling.php


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> How are people taken advantage of if there is plenty of normal priced water to go around. 10 cents a bottle is the price of water where I live at most places for store brand water. Maybe add a couple of cents for Desani.
> 
> And not every place has a price gouging law. Mainly only places in the South or leftist areas have such laws.
> 
> ...


If they do not have price gouging laws than there are no normal priced products as all businesses will charge what they feel they can with no relationship to what it costs them. Again many will be left not being able to buy basic necessities during a disaster.

Good luck getting those laws changed in places that have frequent disasters I doubt you will have any luck I know I would not vote to repeal such laws and I doubt many would in such a place. Those places that attempt to gouge are vilified in the local media.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> If they do not have price gouging laws than there are no normal priced products as all businesses will charge what they feel they can with no relationship to what it costs them. Again many will be left not being able to buy basic necessities during a disaster.


The fact that people get charged with violating these laws prove that there are people who cannot get the basic necessities they need from normal sources due to shortage. Either way people in need are without necessities. The only question is which method is the most fair to distribute the goods. To me it seems arbitrary to say the first in line (or the lottery winner as is sometimes done) gets the goods. It is no less arbitrary than the guy with the most money.

The only difference is that the arbitrary method of giving people with the most money access to goods will eventually lower the price and end the shortage, whereas the "first in line" approach makes it drag on because there is no incentive for people to bring in goods, especially if it costs more to bring them in than what the price ceiling is set at.

Most items are sold with no relationship to what the item costs except in as much as competitors can lower their prices if you are making a large margin. Price ceilings are also typically based on arbitrary traditional numbers rather than profit percents. So if the cost to acquire an item goes up sellers are expected to still sell for the same price.

People buy replacement plastic parts for their cars all the time for hundreds of dollars that cost less than a dollar to fabricate. People get all emotional when it comes to basic necessities as opposed to say, car parts, but I think this emotion gets in the way of the logic. The same laws of supply and demand apply to life necessities as they do to luxury items, in as much as price ceilings cause shortages.

If there was a constant shortage, increased prices could even encourage new businesses to spring up to make more product. If there is a price ceiling, new competitors will be hesitant to invest substantial resources on a start-up where they have no real promise to make much money.

Not to mention that when people have to line up for an item hours before it actually becomes available, that is wasted time. Time that could be spent in other productive activities.

Rich people sometimes pay others to stand in line for them and get there very early. So even when there is no price ceiling rich people can often still get exclusive access.



> Good luck getting those laws changed in places that have frequent disasters I doubt you will have any luck I know I would not vote to repeal such laws and I doubt many would in such a place. Those places that attempt to gouge are vilified in the local media.


It is true most people lack an understanding of basic economic principles. What is most popular is not always what is best.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> The fact that people get charged with violating these laws prove that there are people who cannot get the basic necessities they need from normal sources due to shortage. Either way people in need are without necessities. The only question is which method is the most fair to distribute the goods. To me it seems arbitrary to say the first line (or the lottery winner as is sometimes done) gets the goods. It is no less arbitrary than the guy with the most money.
> 
> The only difference is that the arbitrary method of giving people with the most money access to goods will eventually lower the price and end the shortage, whereas the "first in line" approach makes it drag on because there is no incentive for people to bring in goods, especially if it costs more to bring them in than what the price ceiling is set at.


That is not actually true there is say enough supply perhaps but a very long line one business tries to get smart and says I will raise the price substantially and you will have no line. There is enough supply to go around just people wanting to have less of a line will spend more for that privilege. If that is allowed to stand than the other stores will also raise their prices and than the line will be long for everyone once again until someone gets that idea again. There has been no change in supply but prices have increased perhaps to the point where some can not afford it any longer.

I am sorry in a disaster it is first come first serve no special privileges for those who are better off.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> That is not actually true there is say enough supply perhaps but a very long line one business tries to get smart and says I will raise the price substantially and you will have no line. There is enough supply to go around just people wanting to have less of a line will spend more for that privilege. If that is allowed to stand than the other stores will also raise their prices and than the line will be long for everyone once again until someone gets that idea again. There has been no change in supply but prices have increased perhaps to the point where some can not afford it any longer.


 But if you can sell them for higher prices, more people will try to sell them and undercut them to steal their business, do you not agree? It seems you assume there can be no new entrants to the market, only a couple of businesses that can collude to raise prices and a fixed supply. That is not true. The supply is not fixed. The supply can increase if the prices increase.



> I am sorry in a disaster it is first come first serve no special privileges for those who are better off.


Until a rich person pays someone to get there 6 hours before the store opens to stand in line on their behalf. Rich people always have special privileges. If there is enough rich people and only a limited supply, the rich people could in theory get almost all of them by just paying people to get there first.


----------



## Dontmakemepullauonyou (Oct 13, 2015)

BurgerTiime said:


> http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/10/uber-and-lyft-waive-fees-for-victims-of-las-vegas-attack.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wanna know how many uber and lyft drivers had bleeding passengers jump into their cars. $200 cleaning fee isn't enough to cover pools of blood on the seats so they better be doing something for the drivers. I'm sure it's like a $40 cleaning fee lol.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> But if you can sell them for higher prices, more people will try to sell them and undercut them to steal their business, do you not agree? It seems you assume there can be no new entrants to the market, only a couple of businesses that can collude to raise prices and a fixed supply. That is not true. The supply is not fixed. The supply can increase if the prices increase.
> 
> Until a rich person pays someone to get there 6 hours before the store opens to stand in line on their behalf. Rich people always have special privileges. If there is enough rich people and only a limited supply, the rich people could in theory get almost all of them by just paying people to get there first.


More people could sell at the same price as well. Disasters are very short lived there really is not all that much time for new business to start up.

I am not assuming that supply is fixed I am assuming that there is enough supply in the disaster that there are just people trying to sell that existing supply for an inflated price just because they can in a disaster.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> More people could sell at the same price as well. Disasters are very short lived there really is not all that much time for new business to start up.


Not all that much time for me to load my pickup truck bed full of water and drive for a few hours? Bingo, instant competition. Of course, many would insist that such a thing should be illegal without going through 6 months of red tape after taking 40 college credits in Food Safety Management to get a food sales license.

Big companies that normally operate in other localities could also conduct sales temporarily in a new region, by say driving their rigs down there and setting up streetside stands... assuming the laws of the place do not forbid such business techniques.

Seems like these days business operation and competition are stifled in 1000 ways in the name of protectionism and "fairness."


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Not all that much time for me to load my pickup truck bed full of water and drive for a few hours? Bingo, instant competition. Of course, many would insist that such a thing should be illegal without going through 6 months of red tape after taking 40 college credits to get some sort of food sales license.


More than able to sell as long as you sell for a price that would have been charged before the disaster otherwise if you are seeking to gouge than stay away don't need your help that bad.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> More than able to sell as long as you sell for a price that would have been charged before the storm otherwise *if you are seeking to gouge than stay away don't need your help that bad.*


Their wallets opening up and paying gouge prices say otherwise!


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Their wallets opening up and paying gouge prices say otherwise!


the prosecution you receive after for price gouging says it was not needed.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> the prosecution you receive after for price gouging says it was not needed.


Prosecution of a person for a mutually agreed upon business transaction. I don't know why profit is such a bad thing.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Prosecution of a person for a mutually agreed upon business transaction. I don't know why profit is such a bad thing.


An action can and often is illegal even if both parties agree to such a transaction. Drugs, prostitution in most locations, just because two people agree on a price does not mean all is good if it otherwise violates the law.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

I disagree with laws against drugs and prostitution also!


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> I disagree with laws against drugs and prostitution also!


That is all well and good it does not change the law though. I would generally agree with you on most things other than during a disaster we will not be having a coming of the minds on that issue I believe.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

the extra hassle? are you dumb? theres no extra hassle picking someone up at a major employer at higher rates


Uberfunitis said:


> I usually do not drive during surge times or attempt to be in areas that I know will be surging at a given time. There is a reason that it is surging and I just really dont want to put up with the extra hassle nor do I need to so I dont.


----------



## empresstabitha (Aug 25, 2016)

Disgusted Driver said:


> I agree yet uber has a long-standing rule that they cap surge in a state of emergency. We bear the brunt of that because we are asked to drive in hazardous conditions for maybe 2x.


Which is why in emergencies you should just not drive


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

heynow321 said:


> the extra hassle? are you dumb? theres no extra hassle picking someone up at a major employer at higher rates


Usually when it is surging for me it is rush hour and takes an hour to go four miles or it is some major event that you really have a hard time getting to because all the roads are blocked so no to me it is not worth the hassle.


----------



## hulksmash (Apr 26, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> Usually when it is surging for me it is rush hour and takes an hour to go four miles or it is some major event that you really have a hard time getting to because all the roads are blocked so no to me it is not worth the hassle.


Plenty of drivers that drive for base and still sit in traffic. Not all base rides are hassle free and not all surge rides are a pain. Since you are all about customer satisfaction, do you not like taking more money from them?


----------



## Dhus (Jun 3, 2015)

I was driving that night, never seen LV turn into a ghost town before. I didn't notice any change on my end far as far as the $ & I know I drove some of the victim's families around who received free trips.


----------



## Super (Nascar) Uberess (Mar 15, 2017)

Uberfunitis said:


> I am for market forces when not in time of disaster and tragedy to me that is price gouging and taking advantage of the situation. The statement that I replied to said it would be good PR to pay surge to the driver even though the passenger was not being charged surge. I do not think that would make for good PR on Ubers part at all especially as the general public sees the drivers and Uber as one.


If Uber would pay us equitably to begin with, drivers would have a better attitude and would probably be more inclined to help in times of need. But, since Uber has been telling us to bend over and say aahhhhh for so long now and we know we are being screwed royally with these pathetic mileage rates while Uber continues to increase the grease to their own pockets, drivers do not want to make ANY wage concessions. Ever. And, Uber is the only one to blame for that!!!



Super (Nascar) Uberess said:


> If Uber would pay us equitably to begin with, drivers would have a better attitude and would probably be more inclined to help in times of need. But, since Uber has been telling us to bend over and say aahhhhh for so long now and we know we are being screwed royally with these pathetic mileage rates while Uber continues to increase the grease to their own pockets, drivers do not want to make ANY wage concessions. Ever.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Uberfunitis said:


> To be honest for the entire ride share gig to work there does have to be that expectation, and drivers were not in any real danger after the event when people were leaving, the police will block off everything in a very short time. If I do not reasonably expect that I will easily find a ride home at a reasonable price than there is no reason to take Uber in the first place.


But the "entire ride share gig" DOESN'T WORK. Not for drivers.



Uberfunitis said:


> People should be putting money aside to replace their car with after each ride that is what the entire per mile deduction is all about.


Er, no. Actually it's NOT.



Uberfunitis said:


> When I was younger I was on a volunteer rescue squad we would respond in our own personal vehicles all the time to emergencies we never got money or compensation for doing such other than the knowledge that you are helping your community.


So we're volunteers now?



Uberfunitis said:


> I drive at base all the time I actually actively avoid surges and I am still profitable. Could I do better yes I could but I am content with Uber for what it is. I do not fault drivers who do the surges at all if that is what works for you more power to you. I just don't think there should be surges during disasters and we will likely never see eye to eye on that.
> 
> Money is as I said not the limiting factor hell everyone is getting stuff there as quick as they can already throwing money at the problem does not hurry it up it just wastes more money. I for one am glad that they take a hard line on anti gouging I would like for them to pull the business license of anyone attempting to do such first offense.


You lost me at "I actively avoid surges."



Trafficat said:


> So then why the need to punish people for price gouging if there is plenty of free water to go around? Wouldn't that just make anyone buying from a price gouger dumb if they could just go around the corner and get it for free? Are they not willingly parting with their money? Maybe they WANT the convenience of not having to go around the corner to find a good Samaritan. For what possible reason should the guy who wants to charge money be fined if there are plenty of places to get free water from?
> 
> Either there is plenty of water to go around or there isn't. Some say we need anti-price gouging laws because people take advantage of others who cannot get water... then you say that no one needs to bring in water at charge because there is plenty of free water to go around... so which is it? Desperate people forced to pay high prices, or plenty to go around?


Now, now, don't apply logic to the discussion,  that just confuses people.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

BurgerTiime said:


> http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/10/uber-and-lyft-waive-fees-for-victims-of-las-vegas-attack.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A Noble Gesture.

NOW PAY DRIVERS !



Uberfunitis said:


> I don't think the city wanted them to be close enough to be in danger in fact I would say that would have been causing a major problem for the police.


Well
You wouldnt want a suspect to escape in an Uber.

Bad enough we had one Moving the Body of that poor dead girl a month ago !


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

hulksmash said:


> Plenty of drivers that drive for base and still sit in traffic. Not all base rides are hassle free and not all surge rides are a pain. Since you are all about customer satisfaction, do you not like taking more money from them?


You are correct, I can only express my experience, others may indeed have a different threshold of what they are willing to put up with.

It is hard for some to understand but money is not a a tool that you can manipulate everyone with, no I personally do not find any additional enjoyment in taking more money from passengers. I am not saying that you are wrong in any way if you do as some do actually need that money to live on. While I am not rich by any measure, I am comfortable enough that money does not motivate me.... the joys of retirement.



Super (Nascar) Uberess said:


> If Uber would pay us equitably to begin with, drivers would have a better attitude and would probably be more inclined to help in times of need. But, since Uber has been telling us to bend over and say aahhhhh for so long now and we know we are being screwed royally with these pathetic mileage rates while Uber continues to increase the grease to their own pockets, drivers do not want to make ANY wage concessions. Ever. And, Uber is the only one to blame for that!!!


From what I have read, there was no shortage of drivers immediately following the tragedy willing to help out at normal compensation....



Fuzzyelvis said:


> But the "entire ride share gig" DOESN'T WORK. Not for drivers.
> 
> Er, no. Actually it's NOT.
> 
> So we're volunteers now?


So far I don't think the rideshare gig is working for anyone the drivers are not really happy at all and the riders do not have any consistency in pricing that they can count on to make it all really viable as a vehicle replacement, or even to know that they can afford to come home at night not knowing what the surge may or may not be.

You say that the millage deduction is not for car replacement? What is it for than, it includes average depreciation, average maintenance, average fuel. The entire idea behind the deduction I thought was not to count that money as income because it is being used for those things just mentioned.

The people working for Uber the night of the tragedy were not volunteers they were being compensated, if that level of compensation is adequate is another question.


----------



## mkxr (Jul 1, 2016)

If, in cases of emergency, drivers do not get surge pay, after a few minutes all available drivers will be booked, and drivers from far away have no incentive to drive into a danger area for pickups. If uber wants drivers to show up, they will need to pay surge to drivers, while not charging the riders (to look good in public's eye).
On top of that, since they announced free rides to certain destinations, like blood donation centers, I bet you'll get some savvy riders taking advantage of that situation just to get free rides.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

mkxr said:


> If, in cases of emergency, drivers do not get surge pay, after a few minutes all available drivers will be booked, and drivers from far away have no incentive to drive into a danger area for pickups. If uber wants drivers to show up, they will need to pay surge to drivers, while not charging the riders (to look good in public's eye).
> On top of that, since they announced free rides to certain destinations, like blood donation centers, I bet you'll get some savvy riders taking advantage of that situation just to get free rides.


The only problem with that is your theory did not seem to pan out people did still drive in and there were still enough drivers after the tragedy without turning the map red. Let us face it also that even if that area was red as blood on the map many would not believe that they would actually get surge anyways. In my experience most of the time that there is surge it is all fake, you get there and either people are not ordering because of the surge or the app is always screwing up sending base rate requests while deep in the surge area.


----------



## 7Miles (Dec 17, 2014)

I've been here for 3 years now. Every time it's always the same - Uber offers free rides , 99 drivers say I hope you pay us. And one driver comes along and says - I don't need to get paid during emergencies (or similar type thing) and they argue for 10 pages. Can we please stop that ? I don't care about user names Uberfunitis and his desire to drive for cheap during emergencies.

My question is this - those of you who live in LV and drove - how much you got paid ? Did you received surge pricing ?


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

7Miles said:


> I've been here for 3 years now. Every time it's always the same - Uber offers free rides , 99 drivers say I hope you pay us. And one driver comes along and says - I don't need to get paid during emergencies (or similar type thing) and they argue for 10 pages. Can we please stop that ? I don't care about user names Uberfunitis and his desire to drive for cheap during emergencies.
> 
> My question is this - those of you who live in LV and drove - how much you got paid ? Did you received surge pricing ?


Not just me if you look at the LV forums it seems that many did drive for base rate and were happy doing so.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

A shortage is where supply doesn't equal demand. Supply could be constant but because of increased demand, there is a shortage.

Fixed prices that deviate from market prices cause an inefficient allocation of resources, needless suffering, and even deaths. 

If the power goes out for an extended period of time, demand for generators will spike. Supply would be constant but the demand causes a shortage. If generator prices were kept low, people would buy them quickly, some people would buy multiple generators so they can watch tv in each room. The supply quickly runs out. The person who needs to keep their medicine cool is out of luck due to the out of stock item. If the price were allowed to follow market pricing, some would give up tv, and others would have a large incentive to import generators. So, not only does market pricing encourage a quicker resupply, it also reduces hoarding.

If gasoline spikes to $50 a gallon, only those who desperately need the gas will pay it. To save a life, I'd pay it. If gas were fixed at $2 a gallon, I'd top off my tank and fill every jug I could, leaving less for the rest. Is it better to have gas available at $50/gallon or none available at $2/gallon?

Price gouging laws are a prime example of feel good laws. They're short sighted. Politicians are quick to pass feel good laws, tho. They see voters. Voters see high prices and don't understand the principle of supply and demand.

The free market works. Willing buyers meet willing sellers, with no third party having their rights violated, works. Enforcing fixed prices, ultimately with guns pointed at the entrepreneur, is illogical and immoral.

I didn't drive during our tragedy. But if I was in the area and someone needed help, screw the cash, give them help.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Economics are often constrained by political realities.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> Economics are often constrained by political realities.


True but unfortunate. Only 1 of our 535 members of congress has a phd in economics. Will congress critters take advice from economists or from their campaign manager? They want votes, not necessarily helping their constituents.

Our politicians should be constrained by economic realities.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

bsliv said:


> True but unfortunate. Only 1 of our 535 members of congress has a phd in economics. Will congress critters take advice from economists or from their campaign manager? They want votes, not necessarily helping their constituents.
> 
> Our politicians should be constrained by economic realities.


Yes and no, we have to constrain economics sometimes because we do not desire the most economical result. As an example it would make more economic sense to cut the elderly who are no longer producing off and provide no health care for them as they are a big drain on the rest of society and the rest of the health plan at that point. It would make economic sense to do that but it is not the desire of most people including myself so we constrain economics with the political reality that we do not want to throw away our elderly. The same is true in places that experience disasters often they have set up systems for the distribution of goods during that short lived disaster that are not free market based because they want a feeling of community and that is a political reality that constrains economics.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

The welfare system is another topic.

Its a relatively recent phenomena that the federal government is responsible for individuals. It used to be that if you feared a flood, you got flood insurance. Now, its wait for FEMA. 

If there is demand, the free market will supply it. Restrictions create a black market. Black markets make the unscrupulous rich, corrupt the enforcers, creates disrespect for the law, is unsafe, is undocumented, etc. Governments are inefficient (costly). The larger the government, the more inefficient it is. Spending other people's money is easy but is seldom efficient. 

Nevada has a lot of regulations on who can practice medicine here. Regulators recently suspended some of the restrictions to allow immediate help by private doctors from out of state. In the same way, removing price control laws would encourage out of the area businesses to provide products and services. Enacting restrictions does exactly that, restricts products and services. That's not what anyone should want, especially during a disaster. Governments should be encouraging businesses to provide products and services.

Governments could cap Uber's rates during a crisis. That would not encourage drivers to assist.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

On this we will not agree, I for one see the government as a force for good. The free market is great for those who have the means otherwise it leaves you out just look at the homeless. I am not saying that we should provide a shelter but the free market is not taking care of the situation either. 

Look at the prison system that is for profit our incarceration rate is threw the roof and there seems to be no proof that the for profit prisons are run any better than the government run prisons. It makes no sense for certain things to be run with profit motives.

During an emergency I am not willing to leave it up to profit motive to determine how goods are distributed I want a more fair system and one that is not profit driven even if it is not as efficient.

By the way FEMA actually sells flood insurance so in a flood they better get their buts there as they have taken money to provide that insurance.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Uber and Lyft can't have it both ways, if they want to call us independent contractors then nothing should change on the driver side. They are paying us according to the agreement. If they want to lose money giving out free rides to customers that's their business.
> 
> Hopefully people in that area can chime in on anything that should change to driver rates.


I don't see a problem with this - if Uber/Lyft chooses to pay less than usual to drivers and the new pay offer does not meet drivers' requirements then they will just stop driving until rates improve.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

The police, swat team, emt, hospitals, doctors and nurses were all getting paid during the emergency. Not one of them had their pay frozen just because there was an emergency and I bet if they have overtime policy they got paid for that.

Why should glorified taxi drivers get looked in a poor light for wanting to get paid, even in an emergency?

I disagree with gouging laws, or at least outlawing it completely. A cap maybe, but I'd rather pay more to guarantee I get services than to not have the option to neither pay or receive said services.

Us citizens trapped in the Caribbean during Irma were charged $1000 to be evacuated back stateside via US Air force C130 yet an uber cant get a measly surge?


----------



## Retired Senior (Sep 12, 2016)

I don't like crowds. If I did I would probably embrace Uber Pool! In my experience it is a waste of time trying to get more than 1 trip at a train stop, concert, or similar crowded events. Surges last 5 to 10 minutes and then vanish, before you can drop your first Pax off and return to the surge site. So I stopped chasing surges. Thus it would have made no difference to me if I had been a local Uber driver and Uber promised a surge rate.

Likewise I no longer feel the urge to rush into points or locations where there is a clear and present danger. The active shooter was not the only danger - the crazed behavior of terrified Pax clearly presented another source of danger.

I don't like drama in real life!



PrestonT said:


> If I got in my car as a citizen and rushed to a crisis to help, no one would compensate me, either. I just think it's highly narcissistic to call people stupid for coming to the aid of their community.


Preston, how old are you? There is a reason Nations send their youth off to wage wars. Testosterone surges in young males make it easier for them to over-ride common sense. Adrenalin junkies, risk taking behaviors, may make good first responders but not so great for stable families and communities. What seems to be right and proper when you are in your 20s often transforms into something else when you are in your 40s, 50s, etc.


----------



## donurs (May 31, 2015)

Uberfunitis said:


> The same concept applies to fuel for example in most states the owner of the gas station can get in trouble if they inflate their prices after an disaster or emergency.
> 
> There is no expectation that a taxi or an Uber or even gas will be there when you need it but there is an expectation that people will not take advantage of the situation and profiteer off the disaster or emergency.


It is appreciable that Uber charge normal fares (or charge zero) in similar emergencies and gas stations not raise prices. Difference is that gas station shift employees still get paid their regular wages but Uber drivers lose wages as it is a function of the fares charged.
How about law enforcement and first responders? Can they be denied overtime pay in an emergency?


----------



## mrDEE630 (Jun 2, 2017)

getawaycar said:


> What hazardous conditions? The shooter was dead long before Uber waived the fees.
> 
> As a passenger what's the point of using rideshare if its going to be more expensive than a traditional taxi? At least a taxi doesn't try to gouge you with surge pricing because their price is always the same.


Because a taxi will leave you waiting for hours on end because they don't want to go where you're going? I'll pay to get going rather than waiting to "save" lol


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

donurs said:


> It is appreciable that Uber charge normal fares (or charge zero) in similar emergencies and gas stations not raise prices. Difference is that gas station shift employees still get paid their regular wages but Uber drivers lose wages as it is a function of the fares charged.
> How about law enforcement and first responders? Can they be denied overtime pay in an emergency?


All those responders got paid how they normally got paid just as we did. If we were employees than we also would get things like overtime but we are not so we do not. If we were employees we also would not have a choice in responding or not so it works both ways.



mrDEE630 said:


> Because a taxi will leave you waiting for hours on end because they don't want to go where you're going? I'll pay to get going rather than waiting to "save" lol


An Uber often does the same thing with drivers screening passengers, not supposed to but they really seem to.


----------



## SCdave (Jun 27, 2014)

Haven't read all the posts.

So question. In times of natural disasters or emergency situations, will Uber/Lyft on their own or with partial or full financial support of government agencies:

- Waive Auto insurance deductibles,
- Make all accidents No Fault,
- Add additional protection to drivers to cover possible vehicle or driver personal injury,

I'm a help others type of person but I also have a responsibility to my family.

If society wants me/the TNC Driver to be put in harms way (generality in a disaster situation risks are increased), and society will benefit, then Uber and/or Government needs to step up financially.

It's not just about Surge Pricing and waiving Surge or waiving all fares, what about protecting the Drivers, the Driver's vehicle, the Driver's health & welfare, and the Driver's (& Driver's Family) financial well being.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

SCdave said:


> Haven't read all the posts.
> 
> So question. In times of natural disasters or emergency situations, will Uber/Lyft on their own or with partial or full financial support of government agencies:
> 
> ...


none of that shit matters anymore. boober has successfully crafted the image that drivers are second class citizens. your driver would love to drive you during a disaster and offer you water all for a grand total of $4.34!

people who drive during hazardous conditions perpetuate this idea.


----------



## Retired Senior (Sep 12, 2016)

heynow321 said:


> none of that shit matters anymore. boober has successfully crafted the image that drivers are second class citizens. your driver would love to drive you during a disaster and offer you water all for a grand total of $4.34!
> 
> people who drive during hazardous conditions perpetuate this idea.


1st. Get rid of all those bullshit Uber You Tube Videos that were made and posted several years ago; before the driver's pay was slashed to $10 - $20 an hour . They reflect a lost time and give riders the impression that we are there to serve, and that being of service makes us happy. If the videos cannot be removed then maybe some-one should make a series of new ones titled UBER 2017 - The Stark and Naked Truth

2nd. Start putting 50% of all money taken in aside for car maintenance and IRS taxes. Be very hard and realistic about what you are netting, and keep all your other bills paid up. Uber's promos of a "side hustle" are just so much BS. And you never know when they will pull the plug on your ability to drive with the Uber Ap.

3rd. Be careful how you answer that Pax question: Do you enjoy driving for Uber? The best answer is probably something like: I enjoy it as much as having my adult teeth pulled out. Necessary but really a means to an end. In other words, don't glorify the job. Pax may think that if you really get orgasmic over performing the job, then perhaps you the driver, should be paying the Pax, for providing you the opportunity to pursue your passion!


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> All those responders got paid how they normally got paid just as we did. If we were employees than we also would get things like overtime but we are not so we do not. If we were employees we also would not have a choice in responding or not so it works both ways.


Uber drivers *normally* get surge and here they did not.


----------



## nickd8775 (Jul 12, 2015)

People offered rides for free. Even tourists with rental cars offered free rides. It's called being a Good Samaritan


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> Uber drivers *normally* get surge and here they did not.


If you look at the number of uber trips taken I would venture to guess that this is a false statement as the majority of trips I would guess are base rate trips. Even if they were not suppressing the surge there is no guarantee that there would have been surge with the number of drivers offering rides and like above not all of them even doing it for a fee or with some sort of app.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Uberfunitis said:


> If you look at the number of uber trips taken I would venture to guess that this is a false statement as the majority of trips I would guess are base rate trips. Even if they were not suppressing the surge there is no guarantee that there would have been surge with the number of drivers offering rides and like above not all of them even doing it for a fee or with some sort of app.


When a major concert with 22,000 people gets out normally, I would be surprised if there was no surge.


----------



## Uberfunitis (Oct 21, 2016)

Trafficat said:


> When a major concert with 22,000 people gets out normally, I would be surprised if there was no surge.


perhaps but than again this was not your usual concert getting out was it? The immediate area and a rather large area around that area would not have been accessible in addition to that you have people fleeing in every direction for a significant distance before even thinking to stop and order an uber. Add to that all the good Samaritans and people generally wanting to talk for a while after reaching a safe distance and it is little wonder that there was not a mass ordering of ubers all at one time from one location.


----------



## Brian G. (Jul 5, 2016)

I feel bad for these drivers who were out that night on a staged fake event


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

Brian G. said:


> I feel bad for these drivers who were out that night on a staged fake event


Tell the families grieving their dead that this was a staged fake event.


----------



## Brian G. (Jul 5, 2016)

PrestonT said:


> Tell the families grieving their dead that this was a staged fake event.


Ok do you have proof this happened. Were you affected in any way of this event?


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

Brian G. said:


> Ok do you have proof this happened. Were you affected in any way of this event?


Seriously, go troll some other catastrophe. We really don't need this shit here.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Brian G. said:


> Ok do you have proof this happened. Were you affected in any way of this event?


I'm all for conspiracy theories but they have video from one of the concert goer as he goes around checking the pulse of at least 6 dead.

It was not a staged event. It might have been a false flag event but the people at the concert really died or were injured.


----------



## Brian G. (Jul 5, 2016)

steveK2016 said:


> I'm all for conspiracy theories but they have video from one of the concert goer as he goes around checking the pulse of at least 6 dead.
> 
> It was not a staged event. It might have been a false flag event but the people at the concert really died or were injured.


Post the link if you don't mind


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

Brian G. said:


> Post the link if you don't mind


You are out of your mind if you think ill link the video on UP. You can do your own 4chan/reddit/liveleaks search for the footage.


----------



## LVC (Jun 28, 2016)

PrestonT said:


> Uber gave anyone who was online Sunday night $50 UberEats credit. I wasn't driving so I'm outside that.


Not every driver online Sunday night got the $50 credit. I was online but out in Henderson when all hell broke loose.

Since I wasn't near the area of the shooting Uber didn't give me anything extra for being online the night of the shooting.


----------



## PrestonT (Feb 15, 2017)

LVC said:


> Not every driver online Sunday night got the $50 credit. I was online but out in Henderson when all hell broke loose.
> 
> Since I wasn't near the area of the shooting Uber didn't give me anything extra for being online the night of the shooting.


Good to know


----------



## Dandelion (Oct 10, 2017)

How tragic, the poor people who witnessed this unthinkable 
Act of violence will be traumatized, you have some sicko who 
Rents a hotel room, and shoots at a crowd of people dancing, 
Singing,mdancing with strangers, that's e evil, pure evil
Pure and simple. I feel awful for those people. I can't even
Imagine what that thug was thinking, finding a hotel room, 
Loading up God knows how much ammo, brings something
To smash out 2 Windows, aim and shoot. I just don' get it.
I just hope the security is now tighter in that hotel and all
Of Las Vegas. The thought of anyone hurting others really
Wilts my leaves.

Best (wishes) to all!

Dandelion


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

getawaycar said:


> What hazardous conditions? The shooter was dead long before Uber waived the fees.
> 
> As a passenger what's the point of using rideshare if its going to be more expensive than a traditional taxi? At least a taxi doesn't try to gouge you with surge pricing because their price is always the same.


I agree...take a Taxi.



Uberfunitis said:


> To be honest for the entire ride share gig to work there does have to be that expectation, and drivers were not in any real danger after the event when people were leaving, the police will block off everything in a very short time. If I do not reasonably expect that I will easily find a ride home at a reasonable price than there is no reason to take Uber in the first place.


Agree....take a Taxi.



Uberfunitis said:


> There is nothing dangerous in assuming that there will be a rideshare available when you need it. I can count on having one within five minutes anytime I call it where I live and go to often.


TAXI

Did Taxi's (who charge Surge prices always) refund riders fares?


----------



## HarryCanyon (May 8, 2017)

Here's something really ****ed up. I was on the strip giving rides before, during, and well after the Vegas massacre. A couple days later Uber sent me a notification saying thanks for helping those in need during this tragedy blah blah blah - here's a $50 Uber Eats credit you can use.
Then the notification and credit disappear. And of course the fully automated support gives zero ****s, and claims to know nothing. It makes me sick.



LVC said:


> Not every driver online Sunday night got the $50 credit. I was online but out in Henderson when all hell broke loose.
> 
> Since I wasn't near the area of the shooting Uber didn't give me anything extra for being online the night of the shooting.


The one's who did get this credit had is suddenly disappear, and support know nothing.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

HarryCanyon said:


> Here's something really &%[email protected]!*ed up. I was on the strip giving rides before, during, and well after the Vegas massacre. A couple days later Uber sent me a notification saying thanks for helping those in need during this tragedy blah blah blah - here's a $50 Uber Eats credit you can use.
> Then the notification and credit disappear. And of course the fully automated support gives zero &%[email protected]!*s, and claims to know nothing. It makes me sick.
> 
> The one's who did get this credit had is suddenly disappear, and support know nothing.


 Please spread this information around on social media and hopefully the news will pick up on it. If that is indeed what happened Uber should be shamed for it


----------

