Conspiracy? Coincidence?

[Timsup2nothin]

So, I admit to some bad habits, and watching television is one...specifically, despite hating cops I watch an assortment of cop shows. Anyway...

Over the last couple months, there have been no less than four episodes of various cop shows revolving around the new ride sharing app businesses. Depending on what show you watch, calling for unlicensed taxis makes you a prime target of serial killers, blackmailers, perverted stalkers, government agents monitoring you, and/or burglars emptying your house after dropping you off elsewhere.

So, is this just screenwriters jumping on the latest hip things to make their stuff seem fresh, and they all happen to be jumping on the same thing? Is there some reason screenwriters are interested in downing this new industry? Could the big taxi companies buy some sort of influence among screenwriters? Whacha think?

I've wondered about this kind of thing before, and I tell myself every time that it is just coincidence...but it does seem like taxi companies would certainly be interested in sponsoring this sort of thing if the chance presented itself...

 

[Commodore]

So, I admit to some bad habits, and watching television is one...specifically, despite hating cops I watch an assortment of cop shows. Anyway...

Over the last couple months, there have been no less than four episodes of various cop shows revolving around the new ride sharing app businesses. Depending on what show you watch, calling for unlicensed taxis makes you a prime target of serial killers, blackmailers, perverted stalkers, government agents monitoring you, and/or burglars emptying your house after dropping you off elsewhere.

So, is this just screenwriters jumping on the latest hip things to make their stuff seem fresh, and they all happen to be jumping on the same thing? Is there some reason screenwriters are interested in downing this new industry? Could the big taxi companies buy some sort of influence among screenwriters? Whacha think?

I've wondered about this kind of thing before, and I tell myself every time that it is just coincidence...but it does seem like taxi companies would certainly be interested in sponsoring this sort of thing if the chance presented itself...

I could definitely see taxi companies paying to demonize ride sharing apps since they have already used their money to influence city governments across the nation to ban apps like Uber and Lyft. Pittsburgh has even ordered their police to start issuing citations to Uber drivers after the taxi lobby there raised a huge stink about how their business was being destroyed and Uber had an unfair advantage since the drivers don't have to pay for a taxi license.

EDIT: I do always have to laugh at taxi companies that try to scare everyone into thinking they are going to get raped or murdered by an Uber driver, when it is actually safer to ride with Uber than it is to take a traditional taxi service.

But is Uber safe to use? Well, in general, yes. But that's not to say the app offers a completely secure experience. No company can do that. But the average Uber ride — with its GPS monitoring, cashless payments, real identity recording, and pre-booking — generates more information about who is in the car, and is therefore likely to be generally safer than a normal taxi.

 

[Narz]

You never know the subtle influences behind media.

 

[Kaitzilla]

So, I admit to some bad habits, and watching television is one...specifically, despite hating cops I watch an assortment of cop shows. Anyway...

Over the last couple months, there have been no less than four episodes of various cop shows revolving around the new ride sharing app businesses. Depending on what show you watch, calling for unlicensed taxis makes you a prime target of serial killers, blackmailers, perverted stalkers, government agents monitoring you, and/or burglars emptying your house after dropping you off elsewhere.

So, is this just screenwriters jumping on the latest hip things to make their stuff seem fresh, and they all happen to be jumping on the same thing? Is there some reason screenwriters are interested in downing this new industry? Could the big taxi companies buy some sort of influence among screenwriters? Whacha think?

I've wondered about this kind of thing before, and I tell myself every time that it is just coincidence...but it does seem like taxi companies would certainly be interested in sponsoring this sort of thing if the chance presented itself...

Heh, you notice this kind of stuff too?
There hasn't been a movie where the main bad guys were Islamic terrorists since 2001.

http://markhumphrys.com/cinema.bad.guys.html
(I'm still glaring at you Sum of All Fears 2002)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There hasn't been a movie where the main bad guys were Islamic terrorists since 2001.

http://markhumphrys.com/cinema.bad.guys.html
(I'm still glaring at you Sum of All Fears 2002)

Interesting how you say something and provide a link that says otherwise. That always puzzles me.

 

[Agent327]

Over the last couple months, there have been no less than four episodes of various cop shows revolving around the new ride sharing app businesses. Depending on what show you watch, calling for unlicensed taxis makes you a prime target of serial killers, blackmailers, perverted stalkers, government agents monitoring you, and/or burglars emptying your house after dropping you off elsewhere.

So, is this just screenwriters jumping on the latest hip things to make their stuff seem fresh, and they all happen to be jumping on the same thing? Is there some reason screenwriters are interested in downing this new industry? Could the big taxi companies buy some sort of influence among screenwriters?

Taxi companies sposoring TV shows that display misuse of taxi servcies? Well, that must be a conspiracy.

 

[Farm Boy]

Meh, silicon valley's newest trendy endeavor to obsolete crappy full time jobs with crappy part time jobs, then glean a metric button of money for a few people at the far ranging expense of the nonwealthy many? Why would that be a trending topic? But, alas ride sharing is convenient and caring about social equity is just so boring. Oh, what I mean is: YOU GON GET RAPED!

 

[Commodore]

Meh, silicon valley's newest trendy endeavor to obsolete crappy full time jobs with crappy part time jobs, then glean a metric button of money for a few people at the far ranging expense of the nonwealthy many? Why would that be a trending topic? But, alas ride sharing is convenient and caring about social equity is just so boring. Oh, what I mean is: YOU GON GET RAPED!

What inequity are you talking about? I've been an Uber driver for quite some time now and I am making a decent living off of it, and I'd be making a hell of a lot more if I weren't intentionally throttling my income.

Plus, Uber is not a "job" in the traditional sense. I am not an employee of Uber. They cannot tell me when to work or what I have to wear to work. I have no "production quota" or dickhead boss to report to. I also get 80% of the total fare while Uber takes 20%. It's pretty much like I'm running my own business and Uber is just another business that handles all of my marketing, customer acquisition, and customer billing for a small portion of my revenue.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Taxi companies sposoring TV shows that display misuse of taxi servcies? Well, that must be a conspiracy.

Apparently I wasn't clear. In every one of these shows the criminals are exploiting some vulnerability in the phone app/dispatch/payment system and there is a definite message that the victims would have been fine if only they had done the proper Luddite thing; called a regular cab company and anonymously paid cash for their ride. In one case the investigators outright said basically that in their closing dialog.

 

[Farm Boy]

What inequity are you talking about? I've been an Uber driver for quite some time now and I am making a decent living off of it, and I'd be making a hell of a lot more if I weren't intentionally throttling my income.

Plus, Uber is not a "job" in the traditional sense. I am not an employee of Uber. They cannot tell me when to work or what I have to wear to work. I have no "production quota" or dickhead boss to report to. I also get 80% of the total fare while Uber takes 20%. It's pretty much like I'm running my own business and Uber is just another business that handles all of my marketing, customer acquisition, and customer billing for a small portion of my revenue.

Oh, I get the appeal of accepting sacrifices to compensation to "be yer own mayun," but, I also get accepting crappy wage compensation and having a boss in order to lock down decent health insurance for the family. Cut it any way you like, on the whole this trend replaces crappy full time employment with as you call it, not really jobs. Then uber takes a tidy little cut. We're kidding ourselves if we think this is any different than silicon valley busily making profit off of automating jobs and taking a cut from that too.

Look, I get that human labor is becoming obsolete. I get that out competition and figuring out how to pay people less is a thing. But it's a nasty trend and I think anyone thinking the glorious future of the economy lies in people sitting around, living comfortably, never needing to really work is somebody that's really internalizing the pipe dream.

 

[jackelgull]

Call it what you want, Uber is probably helping some college student pay his/her bills. That's the way of things- some trends benefit some people and hurt others, and its hard to tell whether the people benefiting deserve to do so, or the people getting hurt deserve to be hurt.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Oh, I get the appeal of accepting sacrifices to compensation to "be yer own mayun," but, I also get accepting crappy wage compensation and having a boss in order to lock down decent health insurance for the family. Cut it any way you like, on the whole this trend replaces crappy full time employment with as you call it, not really jobs. Then uber takes a tidy little cut. We're kidding ourselves if we think this is any different than silicon valley busily making profit off of automating jobs and taking a cut from that too.

Look, I get that human labor is becoming obsolete. I get that out competition and figuring out how to pay people less is a thing. But it's a nasty trend and I think anyone thinking the glorious future of the economy lies in people sitting around, living comfortably, never needing to really work is somebody that's really internalizing the pipe dream.

Uh oh. Don't really have to do that any more. The big ball buster of the ACA is that it allows people to serve freely in the service economy, rather than having a boss treat them like interchangeable unskilled units, and still get affordable health insurance. Expect to see a lot more self employment in the service sector as this becomes more apparent.

That's the big crush behind getting everything funneled through electronic payment, by the way. Otherwise the service economy slips away from paying taxes.

 

[Commodore]

Oh, I get the appeal of accepting sacrifices to compensation to "be yer own mayun," but, I also get accepting crappy wage compensation and having a boss in order to lock down decent health insurance for the family. Cut it any way you like, on the whole this trend replaces crappy full time employment with as you call it, not really jobs. Then uber takes a tidy little cut. We're kidding ourselves if we think this is any different than silicon valley busily making profit off of automating jobs and taking a cut from that too.

Look, I get that human labor is becoming obsolete. I get that out competition and figuring out how to pay people less is a thing. But it's a nasty trend and I think anyone thinking the glorious future of the economy lies in people sitting around, living comfortably, never needing to really work is somebody that's really internalizing the pipe dream.

But what are you basing this very negative outlook on? I'm speaking from personal experience as well as the experiences of other Uber drivers. I have health insurance, and I actually don't pay a dime for it because it comes from the state. My daughter and wife are covered under CHIP and I am covered under both CHIP and the VA. Other Uber drivers are also similarly covered under Medicaid or get that healthcare subsidy from the ACA.

The whole "paying people less" thing also doesn't hold up very well either. That may be true in the corporate world for the working stiffs (which is all the more reason to become self-employed, in my opinion), but it's definitely not true for the self-employed. My average daily income since starting with Uber and leaving my full-time job has actually significantly increased.

You also seem to be of the mind that Uber taking a cut is somehow indicative that they are swindling their drivers. But look at what those drivers would have to put out in expenses if they tried to start their own taxi service without Uber and it would come out to about the same as what Uber takes. Without Uber, the driver would have to do all of their own marketing, try to find their own customers, set up their own billing system, and purchase the meter to actually be able to charge their customers fairly and accurately. All of that would probably come out to around 20% of their revenue or more. Plus, what would you have as an alternative? Uber provide all of this support to its drivers for free? How is that in any way fair?

The same concept applies to those who are making the technology that is replacing human labor. Are they supposed to just provide that technology out of the kindness of their hearts? And it's also not like "silicon valley" is forcing their technology on us. They wouldn't be making what they are making if everyone from the super-wealthy tycoon down to the inner-city poor weren't clamoring for greater technological innovation.

Not to mention, it's hard for a business owner to not want to replace his human workforce with machines when workers make some of the absolutely ridiculous demands they have been making recently. I understand people want to make a living wage, but at the same time people have to understand the true value of their labor. Unskilled labor is not worth $15 dollars an hour, and yet that's what unskilled laborers are asking for. In the face of such lunacy, I'd replace my workers with robots and computers as soon as I could too.

 

[Farm Boy]

I understand people want to make a living wage, but at the same time people have to understand the true value of their labor. Unskilled labor is not worth $15 dollars an hour, and yet that's what unskilled laborers are asking for. In the face of such lunacy, I'd replace my workers with robots and computers as soon as I could too.

Unskilled laborers protect and drive the economy. Rendering them shamefully powerless by forcing/controlling their spending through feeble cash payments with the remainder provided, strings attached, by the state is disgusting. If we can't manage to make 15 bucks an hour work in this country, hell, the fellas preaching blood and revolution are probably right.

 

[Commodore]

Unskilled laborers protect and drive the economy. Rendering them shamefully powerless by forcing/controlling their spending through feeble cash payments with the remainder provided, strings attached, by the state is disgusting. If we can't manage to make 15 bucks an hour work in this country, hell, the fellas preaching blood and revolution are probably right.

But why should a company be forced by the government or a labor union to pay an unskilled worker who is easily replaced by any Tom, Dick, and Harry off the street at the same level as a software engineer? That's not only bad business, but it's unfair to the business owner as well.

And the above is not an exaggeration either. There are assembly line workers in my area that were getting paid $30 an hour for unskilled labor and were demanding $45 an hour through their union. The company refused to cave to what was basically highway robbery, so they shut the plant down and moved it overseas. Now those workers aren't getting any money and they have no one to blame but themselves and their own greed. The same is going to happen to all these burger-flippers, shelf-stockers, and cashiers if they keep pushing for $15 an hour. I think their labor is worth more than what they are currently getting, but it's not worth $15 an hour. I guarantee if these workers are successful in their push for $15 an hour, the companies they work for will just replace them with computers and robots and those workers will be in the same boat as those assembly line workers I just told you about. Especially since the machines will be faster, stronger, more efficient, make fewer mistakes, and not complain about how long their shift is. Machines also aren't greedy by demanding wages that are way above what their labor is worth.

Jack in the Box and numerous grocery stores have already begun the replacement process too. Jack in the Box allows customers to place orders and pay without ever speaking to an employee. The only purpose an employees serves there now is to cook the food and bring the food to the customer. How long though before those tasks are handled by robots as well? Now I've used the automated ordering at Jack in the Box and I love it. I have never had my order screwed up when using it as opposed to other fast food places where I occasionally get a messed up order because the person taking it couldn't hear me properly or pushed the wrong button. Grocery stores have the self-checkout lanes; and while they aren't perfect, they are the harbinger of things to come. Retail stores and grocery stores have expressed a lot of interest in improving the self-checkout systems and are even exploring technology to create robots to restock the shelves.

EDIT: Oh, and if the minimum wage workers are unhappy with their wage, maybe they should invest in a smartphone and a car and become Uber drivers. They never turn anyone away as long they have a decently clean background and driving record. That's what I did when I was unhappy with my work situation (of course I already had the car and just rent the phone from Uber).

 

[Farm Boy]

The spiel about automation is exactly what I'm talking about.

The why isn't found in profits. The why is found in humanism, democracy, base respect. If our society is incapable of structuring capitalism in such a way that it provides for the empowerment and importance of its citizenry then we deserve not to keep it. We'll have earned either the violence or tranny that follows. I suppose we can indeed bend over and hope that it's benevolent.

 

[Commodore]

The spiel about automation is exactly what I'm talking about.

The why isn't found in profits. The why is found in humanism, democracy, base respect. If our society is incapable of structuring capitalism in such a way that it provides for the empowerment and importance of its citizenry then we deserve not to keep it. We'll have earned either the violence or tranny that follows. I suppose we can indeed bend over and hope that it's benevolent.

To be honest, I actually don't know what you are arguing against here. Are you against the technology? Are you against corporations trying to maximize profit over everything else? Your statements here are so vague that it's difficult to ascertain what point exactly you are trying to make. I mean no disrespect to you because I actually do have a lot of respect for you as a member here, but so far your posts in this thread have seemed like nothing more than disorganized anti-technologist rants.

So we are supposed to avoid making our own lives easier just so some unskilled worker can still feel useful instead of, I don't know, learning a skill that actually IS useful in the current economy? You think rich people deserve to be drug out into the street and murdered by violent mobs simply because they invested in technology that made their job obsolete? Times change, and you either change with them or get left behind. That's the way it has always been and that's the way it will always be. People have always argued against such change, much like you are now, and they have never been able to stop it. They have also always said that each new massive shift in how we do things would be the downfall of us all. Well, guess what? Human civilization is not only still surviving, it is thriving and growing stronger. There is absolutely no reason to assume the social and economic changes we are seeing now due to technology, will weaken our civilization. People will get left behind and there will be hardships associated with these changes, but that's always been the case. And while it's definitely going to suck during the transition, ultimately humanity will come out the other side stronger than ever...as we always have before.

If there is one thing I have taken away from studying history, it's that those who attempt to resist social, economic, or technological progress always, always, always, ultimately end up on the wrong side of history. They may be able to delay said progress for years or sometimes even generations, but they always end up losing out to progress in the end.

 

[jackelgull]

Just note that "progress" isn't automatically good. I do agree with your statement, but the tone that this is a positive thing is too simplistic a view. There will be winners and losers. The losers are just going to have to accept the destruction of their livelihoods and pray that their kids have what they need to succeed, but America is woefully under prepared to help people succeed.

 

[Zkribbler]

Having taken script and TV writing classes in Los Angeles, I have the answer to the original question.

...So, is this just screenwriters jumping on the latest hip things to make their stuff seem fresh, and they all happen to be jumping on the same thing? Is there some reason screenwriters are interested in downing this new industry? Could the big taxi companies buy some sort of influence among screenwriters? Whacha think?

We were told that producers like to buy stories based upon recent news events. At that time, stories were about China's new domination of the toy industry. So, we were given the example of the A-Team learning Chinese-made toys were being used for smuggling. Then Mr. T could burst in and turn bad guys upside down, etc.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Having taken script and TV writing classes in Los Angeles, I have the answer to the original question.



We were told that producers like to buy stories based upon recent news events. At that time, stories were about China's new domination of the toy industry. So, we were given the example of the A-Team learning Chinese-made toys were being used for smuggling. Then Mr. T could burst in and turn bad guys upside down, etc.

So, that would be a vote for it just being screenwriters hopping on the hip thing of the moment. Thanks for getting us back to the original question.