Skip to main content

Tipping the Uber Driver

Image result for Uber driver

I wrote something here not long ago about the practice of tipping a barber -- at least, my barber. I didn't mean much by it except as a filler anecdote for a day when nothing very profound occurred to me.

But the wonderful blog Marginal Revolution has got me thinking that there IS something important to consider about the practice of tipping people in service businesses with low barriers to entry.

Consider, with MR, the Uber driver who typically has a tip jar. Through the app you are paying Uber, which is paying him, and through the tip jar you can pay him directly. Now: does the practice of the tip jar affect his income?

In the traditional model, assuming perfect competition, etc., the answer is clearly "no." After all, assume it did. Assume, then, that the drivers started making more money per trip by making tip jars available. Word would get out, the business of becoming an Uber driver would be more appealing, and more people would do it. That would mean more drivers per willing passengers. But that in turn would mean there wouldn't be enough passengers to keep all the drivers busy, so although the drivers would still be getting more PER PASSENGER, they'd be spending more time waiting around to find one. And THAT would mean their total income would be unaffected. QED.

The actual conditions of that market approach the textbook conditions of classical 'perfect competition' quite well. After all, just about anyone with a decent car and a license to drive it can enter the market at will, There is no need for a taxicab medallion. And there is no obvious mechanism by which information can be quarantined! The drivers will naturally talk to friends and family about how their Uber work is going, so the market will know when above-normal profits are available.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
27 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
12 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more