Tuesday, 6 June 2017

Uber: Consumer surplus isn't everything

About a year ago a paper (Levin et al) came out on the consumer surplus (the difference between what people did pay Uber vs the most they would have been willing to pay) generated by Uber - $6.8bn per year, in the US alone, from UberX alone. Much was made about the relative inefficiency of Uber in capturing this consumer surplus and thus making higher profits - and how we might expect Uber to do a better job of this over time by raising prices on their customers.

However, the focus on consumer surplus is missing half of the picture.

Uber does not produce anything. Uber is a, admittedly a very good and value add, middleman.

Uber can either increase its profitability by better capturing consumer surplus or capturing supplier surplus, decreasing the amount it pays drivers.

In the future we should expect Uber to try and add to their profits by capturing both sides of this wedge. Indeed the recent rise in Uber's share of fares may be the start of this.

The very publication of the paper on Uber's consumer surplus generation shows that they wish to demonstrate societal value and remain on the good side of regulatory bodies. The lack of publication of the supply side dynamics suggest the less politically sensitive constituency of Uber drivers may be the ones who will first bear the brunt of Uber's attempts to achieve profitability.




On Tattoos

I wish I were willing to get a tattoo.

The aesthetics themselves I could take or leave. But the intent leaves me jealous.

In getting a tattoo you are making a decision today that will be with you for the rest of your life. You are making a life altering choice without having it forced upon you - as I was in getting a job or going to university. You are changing something.

It is showing the willingness to act. It is showing agency.

Sometimes the argument is made the other way - in getting a tattoo you are changing your body and, in doing so, surrendering control over the outside world. What nonsense! If you change the things you can control you are alive. You have a Nietzschian will to power. You are a master, not a slave. There are other things you can change too. How much bleaker to accept all things as they are without challenge?

To Dostoevsky some form of self destruction was a necessary quality in being human. Either perfect rationalism or perfect ethical behaviour set out a bounded course of acceptable action; neither of which allow sufficient freedom to be human - you are instead an automaton on rails .

I prize rationalism and utilitarianism. What is the point of paying money and enduring pain to put a permanent imprint on your skin?

When did I last make a decision that made me feel alive?

I wish I were willing to get a tattoo. But I am not. Instead I write a blog post.