Uber Makes Economists Sad

Re:Uber Makes Economists Sad by toby on Thursday July 10, 2014 @12:50PM (#8015677)

Serious question -- there appear to be common two ways of allocating scarce resources in situations like this: either through price, or through semi-random who-gets-through first (see also online ticket sales).

Why do people think the latter is "more fair"? Are there any interesting alternative methods of allocation that are equally lightweight?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber Makes Economists Sad by declan on Thursday July 10, 2014 @01:16PM (#8015852)

> there appear to be common two ways of allocating scarce resources in situations like this: either through price, or...

But the quantity of the resource (Uber drivers) is not fixed. If you allow a higher surge price, you get more drivers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber Makes Economists Sad by austinhutch on Thursday July 10, 2014 @01:07PM (#8015788)

More people have access to the second method. Many people would rather have a 25% chance of getting through and paying the lower price than not being able to afford a ticket at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber Makes Economists Sad by alexeisadeski3 on Thursday July 10, 2014 @01:06PM (#8015785)

>Why do people think the latter is "more fair"?

I have no idea what unfortunate psychological characteristic of the human brain leads so many to oppose price gouging and markets, but here is some tangential discussion:

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/10/price-gouging-a...

[ Parent | on HN ]