Uber is a company under attack by politicians and the media. Many politicians, like Bill De Blasio, want to restrain its growth to protect incumbent cab companies. Others want to undermine its business model by requiring that its drivers using its devices be employees rather than independent contractors. The New York Times recently ran a story clearly suggesting that the company is using unfair psychological tricks to keep drivers picking up customers.
These complaints lack merit. Protecting incumbents against new forms of competition is a classic harm to consumers. Uber drivers do not meet the traditional criteria for employees because, among other factors, the company does not control their hours or place of doing business. And as Geoffrey Manne shows, the management innovations Uber introduces through the understanding the psychology of workers have benefits to consumers and drivers alike.
But the assault on Uber also ignores a hugely important effect of company and similar services: they reduce inequality— which these same politicians and mainstream media argue is the most important issue of our time. Uber improves both the material condition of the middle-class consumer and the lower-middle-class driver. First, the consumer gets a service that starts looking more like having a chauffeur than a taxicab driver. For instance, he can summon a driver without previous notice and within minutes by pushing a button on his phone in the comfort of home rather than hail a taxi in a storm.
David Brooks is in an angry and spiteful mood. Perhaps he’s even getting to be a bit unhinged, as history is putting his vision of American conservatism onto its rubbish heap.
The New York Times has recently portrayed Amazon as a workplace somewhere between the first circle of hell and a bad section of purgatory, with harsh supervisors and backbiting colleagues that are the inevitable consequence of the company’s management practices. I did not need Jeff Bezos’s demurral to doubt the accuracy of portrait. In a company this large, there will always be bad supervisors, intriguing colleagues and disgruntled employees that can support a lot of wild anecdotes. And the New York Times, a newspaper that even a former ombudsman has admitted is on the left, has an agenda of attacking business the better to justify an intrusive state.
But let us suppose for moment that the Times portrait is more accurate than Bezos’s denial that overall these anecdotes capture the reality of the company. Is it really any cause for concern? The employees chose to work there and can leave at any time: it is not a case of indentured servitude. The white collar jobs portrayed here pay good wages. And most important of all, we have a competitive labor market that serves the needs of employees and consumers alike. Even the Times’ description shows that many employees find the culture empowering and thrilling. Some employees stay for a long period. Others use the skills they learn to start their own businesses. It may well make perfect sense for some people to endure upfront unpleasantness—even of the kind that leads to occasional tears—to gain discipline and knowledge that will later stand them in good stead.
And the result is excellent for consumers. I am sure I am not alone in finding Amazon to be the emporium of dreams.
The one crusade of Mayor Bill de Blasio with which I sympathize is his focus on reforming New York City prisons. They are in a disgraceful condition. Prisoners are not infrequently raped and some die because of the neglect of guards. They are sometimes unjustifiably beaten. But de Blasio is discovering a roadblock to reform—the correction officers’ union. This is a source of great cognitive dissonance to him and his left-liberal supporters because public sector unions are supposed to be an essential part of the progressive coalition.
A New York Times editorial nicely captures the dilemma. The Times tries to solve it by pretending that various malefactions of the corrections officer union are due to its nefarious leader, Norman Seabrook. It even runs an unflattering picture of him next to its critical editorial.
By now, most people reading this site will have heard the news: The Internal Revenue Service said Friday it has lost a trove of emails to and from a central figure [Lois Lerner] in the agency’s tea party controversy, sparking outrage from congressional investigators who have been probing the agency for more than a year. This is a serious matter. Obviously, the loss of the e mails could conceivably be innocent, but the circumstances suggest otherwise. Instead, the circumstances suggest that there was quite a bit of dirt in those e mails. The AP, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal…
Common Core Nation: My interview with Sandra Stotsky, leading critic of the Common Core State Standards. Is there such a thing as legislative intent? In our feature review essay this week, Adam MacLeod reviews Richard Ekins' The Nature of Legislative Intent. MacLeod notes the author's main point: Ekins skillfully defends the ancient idea that a legislature can intend to change law, and the job of courts is to give effect to that intent. The law created by a statute is not merely the assemblage of signs of which the text is constituted. Rather, law is the set of propositions to which the…
A few weeks ago I blogged political polarization among states, and the potential upsides. The topic has traction. Adam Freedman and the Manhattan Institute have a fine take here. And the New York Times has two feature-length pieces here and here. Mirabile dictu, these actually convey information. The first piece examines the national political strategies (on both sides) to shape state politics: hugely interesting. The pessimistic interpretation is that states are becoming mere staging grounds for national winner-takes-all combat. The optimistic interpretation: it’s good that the combatants have to fight state-by-state. It diffuses and compartmentalizes the conflicts. The second piece is on…