Comment by jaclaz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jaclaz | Hacker News Reader

Just in case the Wayback Machine has archived the actual Uber post:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140420053019/http://support.ub...

>What is the Safe Rides Fee?

>From the beginning, we’ve always been committed to connecting you with the safest rides on the road. Our new Safe Rides Fee is a $1 fee added to uberX fares in United States cities with uberX ridesharing. This Safe Rides Fee supports our continued efforts to ensure the safest possible platform for Uber riders and drivers, including an industry-leading background check process, regular motor vehicle checks, driver safety education, development of safety features in the app, and insurance. For complete pricing transparency, you’ll see this as a separate line item on every uberX receipt.

It seems clear enough that it is an added fee (or price increase) by any other name.

Next time - say - a Big Mac will go from 3.99 to 4.99, "for complete pricing transparency" McDonalds may add a "Hygiene and Environmental fee" to support their continued efforts to clean the premises and dispose of the plastics, etc.

This happens at restaurants in cities which increase minimum wage, too. "We've added a cost of living fee to your meal of 8%, don't forget to tip your waiter!"

That's good.

A restaurant, which does this winds up instantly on my shit list.

Such passive aggressive behavior is a sure sign that they treat their staff like crap and I prefer not to give my business to such places.

And then fewer people will buy Big Macs. Market forces in action.

Or rather in countries which are not banana republics the appropriate authority will smack them over the hands and tell them that they can't charge for self-evident things like hygiene. Maybe they'll get a series of sanitation inspections as a bonus too.

Why? If McDonald's is overcharging than the competition is going to beat them out. The market will select them out, problem solved. Regardless, they're free to increase prices as they see fit. your proposal wouldn't stop anything, they just wouldn't advertise why they're raising the price. you're literally proposing that the government regulate the price of a hamburger.

Adding new regulations should be like adding a new software feature. There is a cost, so it should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

I think that people who are eating lots of McD are probably not doing much cost-benefit analysis and anything under $20 for 10,000 calories will be where they go; to the place they have to travel the shortest distance to indulge at.

Have you even been to a McDonald recently?

Free wifi, they are super clean, cheap but delicious coffee, they offer good food above and beyond the cheeseburgers you're thinking about, and they have good ice cream cones for cheap as well.

People often go to McDonald's and use it as a coffee shop and do work.

McDonald's is much better than any other fast food place because they put so much effort into making them nice places to go.

Maybe you shouldn't be so judgemental about people who eat there

>McDonald's is much better than any other fast food place because they put so much effort into making them nice places to go.

Exactly, and that is actually my point.

Since all these features have (obviously) some costs (as well as ingredients, staff, rent, energy, etc.), the moment McDonalds need hypothetically some more money to cover them they might simply increase the prices (correct) or introduce an extra "vague" fee through some weasel words (the Uber way in this case), the end effect is the same for both sides, the customer will pay a little more and McDonalds will have a larger income.

I get your point, and I can see that you get the feeling of judgement from my post, but that I think you are adding.

70 percent of mcdonalds business is drive through Big mac and fries are the #1 #2 most popular menu item.

BUT I suppose I could still be wrong with the above being true ...

>I get your point, and I can see that you get the feeling of judgement from my post, but that I think you are adding.

Not at all, the BigMac/MacDonalds was only an example of something everyone knows about, given exclusively to make a layman's comparison, not to start a debate on free market rules, banana republics, regulations or affordable dietary preferences.

If you prefer, we can use as reference example - say - any other "service" chain, let's say Starbucks (probably a little less ubiquitous than McDonalds).

They make an effort to clean and keep tidy the premises, dispose of litter properly, and put the cost of that in the prices of what they serve, without any need to make a separate fee for that.

The weasel attitude is when Uber saying "for complete pricing transparency" calls a plain raise of price a fee as if it was an added service, a fee, by definition :

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fee

is "an amount of money paid for a particular piece of work or for a particular right or service" so logically the income derived from a fee should go directly to cover costs of this particular service (which instead is implied).

I can't tell what you're responding to, or what the purpose of this particular post is. Just to confirm that hiding price rise in a fake value-add is dishonest? I don't think anyone was refuting that point ...

I was trying to assure you that there was no " feeling of judgement " on your post, not at all, and surely I wasn't going to add anything to it.

I apologize, I am not writing very well or very clearly

I don't see how that would work. Legally it's just a price increase. They're just claiming to state in advance where they're earmarking the extra money.

They may be lying about how they're earmarking the funds, and that may be actionable, but that's a separate issue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com