Let’s Consider Uber’s Emergency Price Capping Policy

Uber (the ride-sharing service) got in hot water in 2014 during the Sydney hostage crisis and shooting. Uber’s automated pricing algorithm increased prices for Ubers to 4x the normal fare in response to demand. This led to a massive media and social media backlash, calling Uber a “shameful disgrace” for profiting during this crisis.

Uber has responded to this by capping its prices at 2.9x during a declared emergency:

Is this cap a good thing or a bad thing? Do you think it protects consumers from price-gouging, or artificially reduces the supply of Ubers on the road during high-demand periods? What are the underlying factors that make this a difficult problem to solve?

Erik Fogg

Erik Fogg is co-author of ReConsider’s written work, co-host of the ReConsider podcast and author of Wedged: How you became a tool of the partisan Political Establishment and How to Start Thinking for Yourself Again. Erik has a masters degree in political science from MIT and has spent years working with various NGOs, Harvard, MIT, United Nations and various private advocacy groups organizations. He’s ghost-written published books. He’s now running a software startup. Erik grew up in a very red part of Pennsylvania and moved to a very blue part of Massachusetts. Having a foot in both worlds has enabled Erik to see how both sides of the political spectrum caricature the other and has sparked his mission to create a real dialogue that cuts through the noise. Erik podcasts from his office in suburban San Mateo, surrounded by 17th and 18th-century European art, a costume-construction toolkit and table, a VR kit, and a small bed for his Boston Terrier, Oscar.

View Comments

  • "Do you think it protects consumers from price-gouging, or artificially reduces the supply of Ubers on the road during high-demand periods?"

    Yes.

    But seriously, is there a reason that it has to strictly be just one or the other?

      • It's not so much that I think there is necessarily a third alternative, so much as that not everything is only good or only bad. Most policies have both upsides and downsides. It's more complicated than just good or bad.

        • Any thoughts on how we might measure or decide whether, on balance, such a policy is net good or net bad? What's your gut say?

          • Well, good for whom? From Uber's perspective, it is presumably a trade-off between extra income and better PR. Though I suspect that they are better than me at figuring out what it good for them.

            For the consumer, I imagine that caps are good for two reasons (though I should note that I have never actually used Uber, so these are based on not very much information):
            1) I get the impression that with surge pricing a lot of the people who end up paying it were not being attentive enough and did not intend to pay that much for a ride. This makes this kind of pricing worse than mere price-gouging.
            2) I suspect that even if customers were properly alerted, that demand-elasticity is greater than supply-elasticity (otherwise it wouldn't take fairs quite so large in order to clear the market). If this is the case, it means that higher pricing isn't really alleviating congestion, it is merely making people pay more (though I guess it does mean that rides are going to people willing to pay rather than those willing to wait).

          • I'll just add what's sortof my understanding of how it works:

            1) Above 1.3x surge (or something) users have to take 2 steps before they can catch a ride:
            -A big "N.Jx Fare!" thing comes up and you have to hit "I accept higher fare surge pricing"
            -After that, one must actually type in the multiplier in order to validate that you understand what you're getting yourself into

            2) The way I understand this is that drivers will set alerts on their phones to tell them if an area within X miles has a surge of Y or higher. The supply is definitely going to lag surges in demand--it's not clear to me whether it's fundamentally less elastic, though.

  • Just something else to consider: My understanding is that the driver gets a portion of the total fare. So if we are talking about the ethics of increasing prices during a national emergency we should probably also consider the ethics of summoning an additional party (in this case, the Uber driver) into the midst of some disaster! Given these circumstances, I wonder if the price modifier is better understood as hazard pay, rather than true price gouging.

Recent Posts

Ukraine XI: Asymmetric Momentum

Ukrainian victories on the ground have been swift, dramatic, and devastating. And each win seems…

1 year ago

Ukraine X: The Absolutely Dazzling Counter-Blitzkrieg

The Russians just got whipped. What the heck happened?

1 year ago

ReConsidering Russia: The Complex History of Russia

Mark Schauss is the host of Russian Rulers History and Battle Ground History. Known for…

1 year ago

Ukraine IX: Oh HI, MARS

https://play.acast.com/s/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62f43f685dc1ea00136539f2 Hot Updates Severodonetsk fell slowly as expected, but then Lysychansk fell quickly because Russian…

2 years ago

It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times, Part 2

https://embed.acast.com/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62d0a6529385dd0012e405d1 Lots of ways we can split this. Much has been discussed about decoupling of…

2 years ago