Uber Driver Tip-Hustling Schemes - <AUTHOR> http://angelinatravels.boardingarea.com/2017/03/15/uber-driver-tip-hustling-schemes-getting-control/ <comment><USER3> No Tipping is one of the main reasons I liked Uber; no cash, no pressure, you just get out of the car and walk away with everyone happy. I would rather pay more for each fare and have Uber aggressively prohibit tipping. I suspect many people feel the same way and if Uber doesn't get it under control, it could be the biggest challenge they face.

<comment><USER4> As a non-American this is how I feel about tipping in general.

It's so much easier to just pay people a decent wage, include it in the cost of things and then not have the pressure of tipping.

That, and tipping is akin to having paid servants. i.e. " _if_ you do a good job, and _if_ I feel like it, I _might_ give you some of my wad of cash. Or not, sucker.".

(Of course, I do tip because the servers rely on it, I just don't like it)

<comment><USER5> In the EU, tipping is half legal -- technically it should be declared income and pay all income+social taxes ++ VAT(!) as the tip is not a direct salary but a service (and hence subject of VAT)

<comment><USER6> In the UK, which is still EU for now, you don't have to register for VAT until your income is £83k so most waiters will be ok on that one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm only a little surprised that nobody has suggested this, but: If the driver does something shady, just get out of the car. Immediately. Don't even give them the opportunity to apologize for it.

I've had drivers call ahead to ask where I'm going. I just hang up on them, cancel the ride, then order another ride. While I'm in the car with a new driver, I report the incident using the in-app system and, on many occasions, they even grant me a credit!

Similarly, I've had on at least two occasions where the drivers did obviously stupid, unsafe things within the first 30 seconds of a ride. I ask them to pull over, and I just quietly get out of the car, report the incident, walk away, and order another driver.

<comment><USER8> Never used Uber, what's the problem with someone knowing where you're going? Doesn't the app tell the driver before they pick you up? (Well I guess not, or they wouldn't call you...)

<comment><USER9> The destination shows up when the ride starts (i.e. you get in the car). Calling beforehand is a an indication that the driver might want to cancel the ride if the destination is "inconvenient" (e.g. from city center to a remote suburb).

<comment><USER10> This is a big problem with taxi drivers is australia. At 2am you'll be lucky to get a taxi home, because they change over at 3, so they don't like to go 10 minutes in the opposite direction.

I'm glad there is the Uber alternative!

<comment><USER11> It turned into a safety issue too with stories about women being stranded because the fare was 'too low' or 'in the wrong direction' for the driver

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I drive Uber from time to time. I've only gotten a tip once over ~50 rides.

A lot of the time the traffic conditions mean that after costs (I assume $0.40 per mile costs for mileage, gas, maintenance, etc.) my hourly is closer to $8 an hour (because after I drive for a while sometimes I need to drive a long way back as well on my own dime), which is below minimum wage. That's not including having to pick up plastic bottles after people or cleaning seats so they don't smell like sweat.

It's basically never worth to pick up anyone who is going far away from your house, you end up actually driving for free since you have to drive there and EVENTUALLY drive home. Why do you think Uber drivers don't want to drive 40 minutes away just to get paid less than if they drove for 40 minutes inside their own city? I'll never accept a ride to San Francisco (40 minutes away) ever again, it's never worth the price unless there's surge pricing in effect.

If I make $8-12 an hour, getting a $1 tip is like a 10% increase in my wage. I don't badger people for tips, but if I got like 10% of people to tip me, it would be super worth. The one tip I got was $20, btw. Even if we assume a 12% tip rate up from 2% if I ask for them explicitly, and the average tip size of $5 (median would be more like $2, but if I get a few more $20 tips the average would be higher than the median), I would make $0.50 more per hour which is a 5% increase in my earnings.

Maybe it's something I should actually start doing.

<comment><USER13> Maybe you can explain something that I've never understood. I see drivers saying "driving for Uber is terrible and a waste of money". I see them saying "after expenses I'm basically working for free." But _they keep doing it_. They keep driving for Uber even though they _know_ that they're basically just working for free, in order to make money for Uber. If you take vehicle depreciation into account, you're probably not even breaking even.

Why? Why do that? My guess is that it's easy work to get and it gives you some immediate cash, and so it's more appealing than spending the time hunting for a 'real' job, but I've never heard an Uber driver actually admit that.

<comment><USER14> The implied social judgment whenever Uber drivers come up is a bummer.

Yes, people prefer to make a little bit of money instead of not having money. This is surprising?

And when someone earns a little bit of money, they might wish that they made more money. Again--not news.

I think before getting critical about why Uber drivers are so dumb, it's worth thinking about why you don't drive for Uber. The answer probably starts with "because I don't feel like I have to." It does for me.

If someone has a great highly-paying full time job and still drives for Uber, then sure, question that person's judgment. Most Uber drivers are not in that situation though.

<comment><USER15> But the comment you're replying to is saying what's the point in working literally for free or at a loss? Sure, if you're not making much, that's one thing, but actually making zero is what they were talking about.

<comment><USER14> The post above that one (the actual Uber driver) says that their hourly rate is about $8, not $0.

Nobody wakes up in the morning and says "today I'm going to drive for Uber literally for free." Of course not. Let's use a little common sense here.

Uber drivers expect, plan, hope to make money. The point is, they don't make much, and sometimes it's very little (like on a long fare).

So the question is, then why do they keep doing it? And I'm just suggesting that maybe a lot of them don't have a higher-paying alternative that they are dumbly choosing against.

<comment><USER16> > I'm just suggesting that maybe a lot of them don't have a higher-paying > alternative

This still doesn't make any sense. If you are losing money working for Uber, then you do have access to a higher paying alternative - which is literally standing in your house and doing nothing. Because zero is greater than a negative amount.

I think there are really three explanations that make sense:

People are not literally losing money working for Uber, or maybe they are sometimes but not overall at the end of the month, and they're just rhetorically exaggerating in frustration.

People are literally losing money working for Uber but only when you include depreciation of their car, and that is a long term cost, so people are effectively taking a loan from their future selves.

People are literally losing money working for Uber but morally feel that they should be working rather than not working, even if there is no economic reason for them to do so, and they just hope their situation will improve in the future.

<comment><USER17> A fourth:

People are literally losing money working for Uber but enjoy driving as a hobby, and Uber helps them recoup at least some of the costs of driving around all the time.

(yes, I've had drivers tell me they do Uber/Lyft for fun because they love driving)

<comment><USER18> I love to drive, and while being a taxi/uber sounds like fresh hell to me, I know I would represent myself as 'driving because I love it' in my shitty ford to save face when I am trading the equity in my car i am still paying off for food in a downward spiral of depression and poverty. People who love to drive, drive sports cars, not taxis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't agree with the argument that passengers should tip because Uber isn't paying their drivers enough. That sounds like welfare for Uber. If the pay sucks, Uber should have trouble recruiting drivers.

<comment><USER20> I really hate tipping culture in America. In Germany, servers are surprised if you give them anything more thana euro. I have friends who visit from non tipping cultures who ask "Why isn't it just included in the price!"

I agree with the author. Tipping is out of hand. Charge more for food, clearly state it on the menu/check, remove the tip black on the receipt and pay people a decent wage!

<comment><USER21> I don't mind tipping in principle, but I _really_ hate the payment terminals that are preconfigured with outrageous options, so it prompts you to pick 20%, 25%, 30%, "other", so you feel like a total sleaze giving a normal 10-15% tip.

It's the worst when I'm picking up takeout from a restaurant that also has tables. Like, am I supposed to tip in this scenario? Do I have to go into "other" to tip less than 20% for being handed a brown bag?

<comment><USER22> I still tip the normal amount when I get takeout from a restaurant that has tables.

<comment><USER23> Is this normal? I never tip for takeout..

<comment><USER24> A friend is a cook who says that even at decent restaurants, cooks don't get paid much and they get just a minimal share of tips. So when I get takeout, I tip 10-20% and say "Thank-you, here's something for the kitchen." Sometimes I get thanks in return, sometimes just a sour look from a server who expected something more for putting my order in a bag. I have no idea what they'll do with the cash, but hopefully some of it gets to the back of the house.

<comment><USER25> Does the US not have the Tronc system?

<comment><USER24> The cash aspect was incidental. "Front of the house" workers here net a significantly higher take-home because they are the ones receiving the tips and what they pass on to others is typically discretionary. Even many of the best establishments will pay cooks subsistence wages. A few restaurants are going tipless, raising prices slightly and discouraging tips, so they can distribute pay more equitably, but then they can have problems retaining wait staff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I guess most of HN never were so broke that they can't put themselves in the place of a worker who can receive a tip.

Tips go directly to a person. Often a low paying or second job. It is about generosity and helping a fellow person. It's not about economic theory or even JUST how they served you.

The tip -$1 or $2 or $5 gets the person a gallon of gas. A meal. A cup of coffee. It helps pay off a bill. It is savings for their childs prom dress. It pays for food.

It allows the tip receiver to be generous themselves (1). To have extra to tip others. (The largest tippers are or were poor) One of lifes most enjoyable things is to be generous.

Tipping shows a lot about the tipper, too.

If Tipping to my fellow HNers is only about placing a value on the service given, then I say you don't know the entire story of working a job where tips make a real difference.

Ask your next uber driver why they are working.

(1) last month I had a fellow give me a $200 tip. The next night a neighbor came over and said her mom just died. She used to live with her and now in a home. Eventually she asked to borrow $20. Well. I don't ever have an extra $20 anymore but I was able to give her $100 because I got the tip.

<comment><USER27> This sort of post is actually yet another reason why I dislike tipping culture. I'm being guilted/pressured -- and not even by a driver -- into supporting a system in which drivers are underpaid and every customer has to individually think about how they can make up for that.

When/if lots of customers start regularly tipping, I fear Uber will just take advantage of the situation to reduce wages even lower -- untenably so. This will end up forcing all drivers to be completely reliant on tips. And once that happens, there's pretty much no going back.

This is an opportunity to have a major service that finally does away with tipping in the US. I don't think we should bend over backwards so easily and just give up on that possibility.

<comment><USER28> The difficult thing here is that neither of you are wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'd love if an economist of somebody with a better financial background could comment on this:

When you're giving a tip, you're effectively giving money to the people who own the company (or participate in profit sharing). Tips allow employers to pay their employees under market rate. By paying enough tip to bring the employee's wage up to the market rate, you are subsidizing the _company 's_ profit, not the employees profit.

Tips are bad for employees because they are inconsistent, bad for consumers because the price of goods are not well-indicated, and good for employers because it allows them to offset their labor cost by hiding it in tips, which they have convinced consumers are going to the employees as a perk.

So I don't know that I agree that the Uber app should implement tips (from a consumer _or_ an employee standpoint). They should charge me more money (or rather, charge me the same as I am paying now, just make it more consistent), and pay their employees more money.

I wish they would do both of these things.

<comment><USER30> Yea, I don't get where this idea came from that tipping is either good for the employee or good for the customer. The employee is getting paid a crappy wage and the customer is being guilt-tripped into making up for it. The only winner is the employer.

<comment><USER31> Don't forget that you're implicitly paying a premium to compensate for the unpredictability/lumpiness/[1] of the tips!

[1] as well as "the presence of people who deliberately flout the expectations" and whose non-payment must be made up, in expectation, by more honest customers.

<comment><USER29> So essentially subsidizing the profit of the employer _and_ subsidizing the cost of the goods that people who aren't adhering to the implied price structure are paying (non-tippers)!

I wonder how this came about? Like was this something a clever businessperson invented at some point? It sounds like the US is the only place with a tipping culture like ours.

<comment><USER31> I don't think "subsidizing profit" is an effect of the tipping system; what the restaurant gains in lower wages, it loses in higher effective food prices.

In fact, I think, ignoring the tax evasion effect, the tipping system reduces profitability, because it scares away business by that "compensate-for- unpredictability" tax, which takes from what could be restaurant revenue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> My uber drivers have been steadily dropping in quality, more often than not taking the wrong directions to my destination, despite the fact that the GPS _right in front of them_ tells them where to go.

I've been using Lyft more and more lately. Drivers just seem.... better. And I don't mind tipping in the app.

<comment><USER33> I agree. I'm consistently amazed at how many people I end up giving sub-five star ratings to these days, and I have been a huge proponent and defender of Uber in the past.

If you pick me up promptly, follow your GPS, have a car that is functional, and either engage me in pleasant conversation or say nothing at all besides 'hello', I will give you five stars. Many drivers seem to act as if they are driving their friends around as opposed to driving their clients around.

<comment><USER34> > I'm consistently amazed at how many people I end up giving sub-five star > ratings

That in itself is possibly a contributing problem. Incentives go all wonky when four-star ratings essentially don't exist. Five-star ratings should be reserved for _exceptional_ service, and three-star ratings should be for average service, not "I'm unhappy with this but not enough that _I won 't feel bad_ giving a _negative_ review, so I'll give it three stars." People don't know how to rate, and it makes all our rating systems much less accurate.

<comment><USER33> It is because of the rating system ambiguity that five stars is the norm. It signals that there is unequivocally nothing wrong. Anything less than five stars could be interpreted in many ways and is very subjective: did the user have a problem or do they just rate differently? It is why five star rating is also the standard for acceptability on Amazon and Ebay.

Personally I don't care if there is no incentive to go above and beyond the base level of service. All I want and expect is the base level of service. If you want to reward epic service, do so with off the books tipping.

<comment><USER34> > Personally I don't care if there is no incentive to go above and beyond the > base level of service. All I want and expect is the base level of service.

This is the exact problem. A base level of service should be three stars, but people have been conditioned to read five stars as base level, and anything below as problematic. The whole point of a rating system is to get an idea of what to expect. When different people rate on different metrics, the data doesn't actually represent what you think it does (whichever metric you subscribe to).

The only reason anything less than five stars is interpreted weirdly is because people started rating weirdly and then start taking that into consideration when looking at the ratings, and it gets all confused. Many of these ratings systems _clearly_ state what each rating level means, and people _still_ don't rate by those criteria. People have been culturally indoctrinated to rate things incorrectly (that is, they specifically don't follow the instructions in lieu of following what has _become_ the norm). This compresses one end of the spectrum which leads to loss of fidelity on that end. It's clearly worse than a system where people actually followed the criteria and we could actually identify a five star average as exceptional, a four star as good, and a three star as sufficient.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I just made an account to post this, a factor that isn't really being brought up by any of the comments I've seen in this conversation is drugs and other illicit practices used by Uber drivers to make money.

I have known several drivers who sold marijuana, small individual shot bottles, smoking papers, flavored cigar papers, and other 'party related favors' out of their cars to make their Uber driving more profitable. Without this source of income made from people going to/from parties and bars on weekends, alongside their actual ride fares, their profit margin is not even worth the time.

These 'tipping' hustles are frankly extremely mild in comparison to my experiences. I'm of the opinion that these hustles are publicly frowned upon, but in practice are not effectively policed on purpose. If Uber policed these sorts of practices in an effective way(like if they had cameras/monitors in cars) they would lose a substantial portion of their drivers instantly.

<comment><USER36> While I don't doubt this happening, where are you located? I've taken over 1,200 Uber rides in the Bay Area and LA, at all times of day, and have not once been solicited for drugs or smoke shop/convenience store items. (Plenty of other hustles, though.)

<comment><USER35> My experience getting offered relates to southern/midwestern states, TN/NC/GA stand out to me, and the drivers I've met/spoken with who did this most regularly operated in areas of Atlanta and its surrounding suburbs specifically.

Although I have also experienced this several times in the upper Midwest. I suspect there might be some bias in my physical appearance that makes me get offered more? Several drivers had a sort of setup where they had goods in a box/console and opened it to make the offer, so it seems likely that if they didn't feel a fare to be the partying type they would simply not make the offer? One I saw had an entire cooler setup.

Another possible explanation could be that in very competitive areas like LA or the Bay the rank/yank system cuts out bad drivers more quickly than middle- america where there is maybe not as large of a pool of people applying to be drivers?

I have never had a bad or sketchy ride in Bay/NYC/Chicago/Dallas. (I have had no experience with Uber in LA)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Born and raised in northern Europe I find the US tipping culture weird. To me, tips are a bonus for service that goes above and beyond the expected.

<comment><USER38> Unfortunately it's the nature of the beast when wages are so low. Bartenders are typically paid next to nothing and depend on tips, whereas in Europe they are paid a decent amount and don't need tips to get by.

Unfortunately US politics means this won't change any time soon. Evidently it's simpler for every American to carry around spare dollar bills every day than it is to pass meaningful legislation.

<comment><USER39> If Americans would stop tipping then the current wages would become untenable and the restaurants and bars would lose staff. They would need to increase wages (and prices) accordingly. This is something the American people have the power to change without legislation.

<comment><USER40> In a sense you are right, but practically speaking individuals can't morally unilaterally defect from tipping. When nearly everyone agrees that 15% is the tip for normal performance, and one person leaves 0% for normal performance, that one person is free-riding and effectively hurting an innocent victim.

One practical solution would be to close the minimum wage loophole for tipped employees. The difference between the two minima is the presumptive value of the normal tip, so this is a means by which you can coordinate an instant and universal change from relying on tips to having no reliance on tips. It's not exactly ideal, given that everyone knows waiters typically make a lot more in tips and evaded tax than that difference, but it is at least consistent and nominally fair.

I am not sure what other practical solutions you might have in mind.

<comment><USER41> I saw your reply right after I made mine... finally someone else who understands the problem of collective action!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Uber pool is just a terrible experience in many levels

1\. Many drivers think they make less if the passengers are using Uber pool. I am not sure if this is true or if they are confused. However, when they find out I am using pool they instantly turn passive aggressive and start complaining how they make nothing on a pool ride. They make me feel as if I am taking advantage of them.

2\. Uber also tries to pack the car these days. A lot of times, it is probably much faster taking public transit than using pool. One time, my pool ride was just going around picking up people and 15 minutes later I was exactly a block from where I started. I got off the ride and Uber has the balls to charged me $10 for "cancelling". Decided to quit Uber on that very day. Will only ride public transit or Lyft these days

<comment><USER43> Aren't there a few different pool "aggressiveness" options you can choose from?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Tips are a way for an owner to scam personnel out of decent salary. There is literally 0 reasons to have it these days. Every issue they were designed to solve either disappeared, easily solvable, or when solved via tipping leads to more significant problems.

Low income? Pay workers more. No one thinks it's a good idea to start tipping, say, teachers.

Can't afford higher salary? Split X% of profits among (smaller) staff. No one sells furniture for 10% less, halving cashier salary and making tips a requirement.

Suffering of preferential treatment of tippers (like giving out seats for money)? Fine or fire offending personnel. Why what effectively a bribe considered okay in these cases?

But no, somehow US culture still decides it's better to move that pressure and responsibility onto the customer provoking conflicts.

</comment><comment><USER45> I'm from Sweden and generally I never tip anything for any service available - neither does the absolute majority of my countrymen - with the exception of being on vacation in other countries or eating at some real fancy restaurant.

I were in US a couple years ago and found it pretty emberrasing how people are expecting a tip. I understand that they're paid less and i've spoken with some of them and waitresses etc may make about $3/h+tip. It's not the customers job to see to it that the employees stay at their job - it's the companies. At the hotel bar we had some kind of happy hour where everything was free which of course made it a bit crowded so unless you held up a tip / bribe the bartender just ignored you.

I understand that there are cultural differences but in my opinion you get a tip for a job well done - but it's ALWAYS optional and you should never feel obligated to give one.

<comment><USER46>
        Tips are often a major source of compensation
        for wait staff and other U.S. service providers.
        Employers often pay these employees lower wages
        in anticipation that tip income will provide a
        significant portion of the employees' income.
        Customers should realize that they are not
        auotmatically paying 'more' (due to tipping).
        In non-tipping countries, the tips are simply
        built into the price of the food.  An advantage
        to tipping, therefore, is the ability to tip
        whatever is appropriate: if the service is
        poor, a small tip should be left, signaling
        to the server that their service was subpar.

[https://www.tripadvisor.com/Travel-g191-s606/United- States:T...](https://www.tripadvisor.com/Travel-g191-s606/United- States:Tipping.And.Etiquette.html)

<comment><USER45> I understand that they count on it as salary, it's the same with the Uber drivers - they don't make enough so they depend on the tip. Either way it's not acceptable - if they can't support themselves on the wages they have they should demand higher wages from their employers who equally raise the cost of the product.

<comment><USER47> And pay tax for it as is the social contract for all other wages...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Serious question for those who are pro-tipping...where do you draw the line? How do you choose which products/services are tip-worthy and which aren't?

<comment><USER49> Whenever worker exploitation is involved (such as in this case), or when the worker materially relies on tips to stay afloat, I always try to tip.

Wherever it's accepted by society, I also generally tip.

<comment><USER50> Then you are just enabling that process to continue. You are subsidizing their wages and making it seem ok for their employer to pay them peanuts.

I don't tip anyone and tipping is not a common practice where I live. In fact, most people would feel insulted if you gave them a tip here.

<comment><USER51> > You are subsidizing their wages and making it seem ok for their employer to > pay them peanuts.

You're going to end up paying for it either way. But yes, I agree - I'd rather get rid of the culture of tipping and just pay a reasonable price for a service.

The thing that really sucks though, is per federal law an employer paying the 'tipping minimum wage' is required to make up the difference if an employee makes below the normal minimum wage - they almost never do from what I can tell. By choosing to not tip not only am I just being an asshole, but the employer won't change anything either because the chance of them being caught being a douchebag is slim.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Did Uber change the way they deal with driver ratings? Their "rank and yank" system [1] was once the object of considerate consternation. You would think that it would have been quite effective at dealing with "aggressive, tip- hustling" drivers.

[1] [http://www.ridesharingdriver.com/low-uber-driver-ratings- a-c...](http://www.ridesharingdriver.com/low-uber-driver-ratings-a-checklist- to-bring-them-back-up/)

<comment><USER53> What does "rank and yank" mean? It's not mentioned on the page you linked to.

<comment><USER54> They cut anyone with a rating below X where X is determined market by market in order to balance out the number of new drivers they have coming in with the number of drivers they are cutting for bad ratings and also taking into account growth for demand in the market. In new or rapidly growing markets they hardly cut anyone ever but in mature markets with ample supplies of drivers they demand a very high average rating. At one point the cut off for being let go in LA for example was something like 4.6 out of 5.

<comment><USER55> It appears only the desperate drivers are left in the system, making ranking and yanking self-defeating unless Uber wants to continue to canabilize its diminishing capacity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Lyft has a good solution for this, in that they prompt you to give a tip _through the app_ at the end of the ride. More and more they're seeming like the (at least marginally) more ethical and sane ride-sharing app.

<comment><USER57> But tipping sucks. That was one of the reasons Uber was better than Lyft in the first place.

Then some assholes sued and now Uber drivers are allowed to ask for tips. Nice job breaking it, hero.

<comment><USER58> Why does tipping suck?

<comment><USER59> People shouldn't need to beg for money in order to have a stable income when they are already working regular hours. The cash flow problems it creates for individuals and the awkward social dance it makes is problematic for everyone. No one likes two prices, they want to know what they are paying ahead of time everything included, any extras/feeds/charges/gratuities make for a bad customer experience

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I think Uber drivers try to solicit tips from female passengers far more often than from male passengers. I rarely tip Uber, have taken hundreds of rides, and have never been solicited.

(When I do tip on Uber, it is either going to the airport overseas to get rid of spare cash, or if something exceprional happened. I've taken UberX in major snowstorms and in that case happily tip $20. I left a laptop in an Uber and got it returned to me within 5 minutes, I tipped $50.)

</comment><comment><USER61> I do Uber part-time but only deliveries (UberEats). I get tipped from time to time and I have no expectation on the tip. I also don't have the problem of driving for free as the restaurants have a radius and usually I'll be near another place or return to my spot to sit for a bit.

I find tipping awkward as the courier. Sometimes people like to explain they don't have cash to tip me and I have to explain tipping isn't expected on Uber's platform so don't worry about it. Other times there shoving $5 bills at me for driving 1.0mi down the street.

As a customer I've yet to tip a Uber driver as other stated I don't carry cash only plastic. Same goes with getting my car detailed ... Do I give them $20 on top of the $100 or leave it at $100.

Then I think how many drivers actually report the tips they make to the IRS.

</comment><comment><USER62> What bothers me is that I don't want to tip in cash, and I never carry cash. Put tipping in the app for AFTER I get out of the car and AFTER the driver has given the rating. No rating, no tip.

</comment><comment><USER63> > Then I've discovered first-hand that more and more Uber riders are calling > ahead to ask for your destination to see if it's "worth it" to pick you up.

When I use Uber the first question it asks is the destination. I assume this is seen by the driver, no? Why would they have to call?

<comment><USER64> Ridesharing apps don't reveal destination to the driver until they arrive at the pickup. This is to prevent drivers from only picking good rides and leaving riders in the lurch. One of the main selling point of Uber in some cities is that they would get you to places taxis refused to go.

<comment><USER65> I thought Uber was about pure capitalism, with surge pricing and all. I actually thought that drivers knew the destination and that the price was going up until a driver accepted the ride.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> No tipping has been a big driver of success for Uber. Americans dont realise they are the only people who in the world who "tip" for completely average service/just doing your job.

</comment><comment><USER67> I drove for Uber in a resort town and was appalled by how difficult it was to make any money at it even though I was paid twice the metro rates. The biggest problem is all the unpaid work and investment Uber drivers have to make just to drive for Uber and then Uber takes a huge cut.

There are a lot of sunken costs involved in becoming an Uber driver. The driver then has to recover those costs with miserable earnings. I suspect the burn rate of Uber drivers is unsustainably high.

</comment><comment><USER68> Tipping is awkward and unpleasant. It is the number one reason I use uber.

<comment><USER14> Did we read the same blog post?

Uber's inconsistent and awkward tipping scheme is a big reason I don't use them.

<comment><USER69> Uber's tipping scheme is extremely transparent: Don't tip.

The "self employed contractors" who pick you up may have tipping schemes inconsistent with one another, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> In Australia we've tried tipping Uber drivers (e.g. because we've inconvenienced them with a stop to pickup food on the way home) and so far after 5 occasions no driver has accepted the tip (taxi drivers accept a tip without question, and usually won't accommodate short trips, despite the law, yet alone special requests).

<comment><USER71> I've had the same experience in Poland. Tried to tip a driver who'd gone above and beyond in helping me out, and the driver refused to accept the tip.

The whole thing seems to illustrate just how far out of whack tipping expectations are in the US compared to the rest of the world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Simple solution, bad reviews for drivers that demand tips - the problem fixes itself when Uber stops giving them fares.

</comment><comment><USER73> Many cultures and sub-cultures don't believe in tipping for many different reasons. These cultures exist all over the globe and in the US. When tipping is needed to provide a decent wage for a service, people from these 'no tipping' cultures will tend to get bad to no service. Taxi services are heavily criticized for this behavior. I think it is great at least one of the two major smartphone hailed car services has a default culture of not tipping. Drivers can choose which they like better.

Uber rides are very cheap at the moment, especially when you get an Uber Pool and no one joins. I hope they up the fares some and pass them on to drivers and keep tipping for special extra-ordinary service. Uber is so much more convenient than conventional taxi service and I sure hope it or some similar service continues into the future.

</comment><comment><USER74> I remembered getting hustled to buy my driver McDonalds then coming home to realize I got billed $36 dollars for his time; a trip that usually costs $9. He guilt me into thinking he does not get paid the more he waits. Alcohol...

<comment><USER74> Oh! Forget to say this, I bought him McChicken and Fries. And a Poutine for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> In some countries tipping is perceived very negatively. I have had my tip money almost thrown on my face as the server accused me of taking him as a "beggar". They earn good money and they take pride in their serving jobs. Greedy American institutions have shoved this concept of tipping down the consumer throats. Increase my food prices or driving rates, and I would be happy to pay them than haggle with every other service industry person about shorting them a $1 or $2.

</comment><comment><USER76> Curious; are Uber or Lyft drivers penalized at all for canceling? I had a Lyft driver a few weeks back call me and ask where I was, which is odd since the app tells him. Turns out he was on the wrong side of the street. Instead of just turning around, he just says "bye", hangs up and cancels the trip. Was annoying for me since I had been waiting for 10 minutes at this point but it seemed like a real poor choice on his part.

<comment><USER77> Apparently not. We had a driver the other day in Park City, UT who told us that Uber drivers are no longer held to a minimum trip acceptance rate. Whether this is true or not he said Uber lost a lawsuit and could no longer apply the rule.

He then proceeded to tell us with great glee that his trick was to go offline in-between trips until the surge price hit at least a 5-6x multiplier. He would then go back online and pick a fare that suited him. It explained why all of the Ubers and Lyfts there were insanely expensive.

I've never seen anyone so happy to tell me to my face that he was ripping me off, and he even had the cheek to ask for a 5* rating at the end of the trip.

<comment><USER78> Why would you be upset? It's just a participant in the free market playing the game. After all you just can hang around for a few hours for the surge to end.

<comment><USER77> My point is that there is no end to the surge because they are all doing it. If the drivers are artificially limiting supply at all times then why wouldn't I be upset that I'm getting ripped off? Not once during my four day stay did I see the surge price go under 2x.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> Won't peole rate uber drivers who do this poorly?

</comment><comment><USER80> I've been increasingly using taxis, especially at airports because uber and lyft are turning into gypsy cabs. Forgetting that it often takes longer to get an uber, the number of times I've been pitched on some perfume or religious thing is really skyrocketing.

Everyone has a side hustle to their side hustle now and it's generally concerning as an indicator of the economy.

</comment><comment><USER81> It's not just Uber -- I've seen tip jars out in Australian food stalls with signs exhorting patrons to tip.

I like not having to tip, too, but it's like the Prisoner's Dilemma: once somebody starts successfully collecting tips, everybody else feels pressure to ask for them and then the whole economy adjusts to accommodate them. That's how I think we got where we are.

<comment><USER82> There are tip jars, but there's no expectation to tip (at least in Sydney), it's just a thing if you're feeling generous that day.

<comment><USER81> Maybe this is a thing that is starting up north and slowly working its way south? In Brisbane, nobody asked for, or per se expected tips, but a tip jar was present often with a handwritten sign that said "Tipping is good karma" or "Tippers are sexy" or similar.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> With Uber increasingly squeezing profits out of their drivers, this was 100% bound to happen. I am more surprised that Uber allows drivers that request tips to continue driving with them. If they really want that extra cash, then they should just go full-time on Lyft, especially now with all of the drama they're going through.

</comment><comment><USER84> My recent policy is to not answer my phone or texts once I've requested an Uber/Lyft. Too often I've had riders call me to ask where I'm going, and then ask _me_ to cancel. I have had awkward phone calls where they ask me to cancel, but I politely decline and ask them to do it if they'd like.

</comment><comment><USER85> The writer is complaining about a worker trying to make a fair wage while promoting predatory lending with credit cards offers.

Nah.

</comment><comment><USER86> I'm surprised that this discussion of tipping doesn't include the fact that it implements price discrimination. It's possible that the reason tipping is so often the end point of systems is that price discrimination is much more profitable than having a fixed price for everyone. So trying to design a pricing system that replaces a tipping-based service needs to deal with this problem. How is your service going to implement price discrimination without tipping? Otherwise how is it going to be as profitable as a system that has price discrimination?

I'm not saying I prefer these systems as a consumer; I would much rather pay a fixed price. I'm saying that it seems like they create the most profit and thus competitive edge for the businesses using them.

</comment><comment><USER87> Uber should add tipping to the app, period. The way that Lyft does it is nice because you can't be pressured into a tip - the ride must be completed before the tipping screen is shown which means you're already out of the car. Even more importantly the driver has already rated you before you make this decision. I've tipped many Lyft drivers and never had a single one ask me for a tip or a good rating. I've had many Uber drivers ask (or put up a sign), because they know the app won't ask for them.

I know what the responses will be already. "The lack of tipping is one of the main reasons I use Uber! Tipping is awkward! They should pay their drivers more it's not my job". So then don't tip. That's really all there is to it.

</comment><comment><USER88> Lots of discussion about whether tips are good or bad. Friendly reminder that people don't tend to tip all races equally [0]. This means that having driver compensation partially in the form of tips will mean black drivers get paid less. Some interesting implications here [1]

[0] [http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...](http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=articles)

[1] [https://onlabor.org/2015/11/23/guest-post-tipping-as- employm...](https://onlabor.org/2015/11/23/guest-post-tipping-as-employment- discrimination/)

</comment><comment><USER89> Well if someone chooses to share their car, you should just be happy that things worked out such that it was convenient for them to pick you up. And certainly you can share an extra couple bucks with them.

We're all just _sharing_ , right?

<comment><USER90> The issue with Uber is tipping can affect ratings and Uber plays like tipping isn't part of the mechanics. They've pushed driver payout so low it's now important for drivers to figure out how to get extra money from their fares. Lyft has pricing parity with Uber so the same issue exists but they help the situation by allowing tips to be collected in app but not expose the tip during the ratings process. It's a more honest and mature mechanic and why I've switched over to Lyft completely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> I feel like the inconvenience of getting hustled is just a minimal tax on using an questionably moral, very low-cost, low-job-security service. You get it cheap, but you've got to interact with desperate people, and deal with how that makes you feel uncomfortable...

If you don't want to get hassled, better pay is the byline, not a tacked-on after-thought.

(Disclaimer: I found the tone of this post pretty insufferable.)

</comment><comment><USER92> There seem to be really extreme regional differences with this. Wherever I am, when I take an Uber I usually tip a small amount ($1-$2) and as small talk I ask the driver what ratio of people leave a tip. Here in Western Mass I've gotten answers in the 30-50% area, if I'm right. New Hampshire seems to be similar. But in New York, they tell me it's maybe 1 out of 10.

</comment><comment><USER93> Make sure you give a low rating and explain exactly why you did to the uber customer support, have always had refunds when dealing with this

</comment><comment><USER94> Why should I tip you? Just because you got me home safely in a clean car for $5? I only tip everyone else. Not you stupid driver.

</comment><comment><USER95> I usually use Lyft and so the option to tip is there so this doesn't seem to be affecting that service yet. I honestly haven't used Uber in a while since the app never seems to work but if I got propositioned for tips with Lyft/Uber I'd definitely be hesitant to keep using that service going forward.

I really, really hope they nip this in the bud.

</comment><comment><USER96> Lyft offers in-app tipping, well after getting out of the car. Convenience is what people want, and Lyft makes it convenient to tip the driver whereas Uber makes it convenient to not tip the driver.

I'm amazed so many people still use Uber, not even because of the rotten company culture and business practices, but because of the user experience.

<comment><USER97> Lyft is not available where I live, Uber is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER98> I feel like Uber could get innovative here.

Add 10 cents to every ride and divide that money amongst the drivers in the city each day based upon 1) number of rides 2) rating 3) number of canceled trips 4) distance. It will incentivize the drivers to get good ratings (more so than now) and encourage less canceled trips and more fares.

</comment><comment><USER17> The author is more tolerant than I am. In the case of both Ride 1 and Ride 2, I would have immediately cancelled on the driver as soon as he pulled those stunts.

I actually did once get a text from a guy demanding to know my destination. I told him I already entered it into the system, and he immediately cancelled on me.

</comment><comment><USER99> Why do they even have a rating system if they have a tipping system? Ratings for drivers should be based on how they are tipped compared to the average in the area. Ratings on riders should be based on how well they tip compared to the average in the area.

</comment><comment><USER100> Yeah, I've never tipped an Uber driver. Not because they haven't been excellent, but because I don't carry cash, and it's supposed to be frictionless. I.e., easy. If this happened to me I'd never ride another one.

</comment><comment><USER101> Wait - isn't tipping included in Uber app? I almost never use it myself. Gett, on the other hand, has automatic tip setting (like 5, 10, and 15%) that you can set once for all your rides.

I thought the whole point of Uber is to make the transaction cashless?

</comment><comment><USER102> Interesting comment:

 _" Drivers sued because Uber was treating us like employees. Uber used to deactivate drivers who mentioned tips. The judge said Uber Drivers are independent contractors and have the right to request tips."_

</comment><comment><USER103> Whether they mean to or not, Uber has been making the drivers less and less human. Now it's backfiring.

Lyft includes tipping in the UI, after the ride. As a result, their drivers don't have as much of a reason to hustle for tips.

</comment><comment><USER104> If you don't make enough driving Uber. Don't drive for Uber. The market corrects low pay; basic supply and demand.

Would you pay $10 for an oranage if you're buying it right from the farm? Of course not. The supply is such and the demand is such that $10 isn't the price.

Would you pay $10 for an orange in you're at Everest Base Camp? Probably because there aren't many orange trees up there.

The whole "living wage" argument doesn't hold much water with me. If Uber drivers were scarce, then Uber would raise prices (such as surge pricing.) If you aren't making enough driving Uber, then take your car, start your own car service, start marketing and compete.

Not that it's relevant but I don't particularly like Uber however I do like the free market. In this case it isn't like Uber is a monopoly.

</comment><comment><USER105> Wow, norms change quickly. I traveled with my golden retriever several times last spring (always asking first by phone) and the drivers were all genuinely surprised when I offered a tip at the end of the ride.

</comment><comment><USER106> There's no legal requirement to tip anywhere and it's money out my pocket and into a strangers (whom I'll likely never even see again). I never tip - <USER2> anything - no one should.

</comment><comment><USER107> > A fair solution would be for Uber to install an in-app option to add a tip.

One driver I spoke to said they used to have that, but Uber just kept the tips and didn't pay them to the driver...

</comment><comment><USER108> Uber grew a lot by aggressively cutting prices to boost demand, but at some point if you push drivers too hard it's going to backfire and ruin the customer experience.

</comment><comment><USER109> I really like the Starbucks model, where you add the tip after the fact. If the drivers doesn't know who tipped them, then they would be nice to everyone.

</comment><comment><USER110> I'm in NYC with 50+ Uber rides under my belt. Never been asked for a tip. One time I tried to tip the driver and he refused to take it.

</comment><comment><USER111> Every single internet sales article advises harassing people for profit, yet everyone freak out when the real world tries to sell something to them.

</comment><comment><USER112> When I hear the word "tips" after massage in Asia I never come back, even if I liked the massage.

This is very rude to ask for them, so I act proactively.

</comment><comment><USER29> I really wish uber would just charge more. Part of why I fell in love with the service was because it sounded like the drivers were really happy.

</comment><comment><USER113> The most ethical thing you can do is delete uber

</comment><comment><USER114> The moment they add tipping the driver salary will go down even more.

I hate this american business method of shifting blame to the customer.

</comment><comment><USER115> TIL you have to tip Uber drivers. Oh well. Luckily I only used it like 3 times and not planning to use it anymore.

</comment><comment><USER116> Do you tip your airline pilot? >No Bus driver? >No Subway conductor? >No

Well, guess what that means.

</comment><comment><USER94> I just paid your employer $5 to take my tipsy ass home at 3am, safely in a clean car. Why would I have to give you $3 tip? Fvck off, only my waiter or bartender get tips from me.

</comment><comment><USER117> Grateful that I live and work on public transportation that's both cheaper and less unpleasant than what the author described.

</comment><comment><USER118> seems like a terrible company to support:

[https://www.jwz.org/blog/2017/03/a-round-up-on-why-uber- is-a...](https://www.jwz.org/blog/2017/03/a-round-up-on-why-uber-is-awful/)

</comment><comment><USER119> Uber isn't going to exist

<comment><USER120> Don't burn yourself on that hot take.

</comment></comment><comment><USER121> Welcome to America. People who complain about tipping annoy me. I agree it's a pain to have to tip but companies in America like to not pay their employees.

Instead of giving the tipping option Uber should just automatically add 15%. But knowing Uber they would just keepo this 15% and not pass it on to the driver.</comment>


Ask HN: Why shouldn't I leave software? - <AUTHOR> About Me:
I'm a mid-career developer, age 48.  I started programming in 1983 on a TRS-80 Model 3, then graduated to an Apple //c, and fell into a Computer Science degree.  I've been a professional software developer since about 1996, with a couple of detours, including getting a business degree and doing project management.  I'm a good developer and have been successful in my work.
Nearly all of my professional development experience has been doing "full stack" web applications using a (much-evolved) Java backend with whatever passed for frontend at the time, starting with godawful applets, HTML, and Javascript in Netscape Navigator 3 and culminating in Vue.js and the madness that is Webpack.
I still love programming; the satisfaction of dreaming up a solution and making it work is strong, but I don't love the software industry.  In fact, as time has gone by, I'm coming to hate it.  The obsession with youth, novelty, and the accompanying hubris (even ignorance) cause me to want to move to another industry and give up professional programming.  I also don't see a path for personal growth that isn't software development management, something for which I find no enthusiasm.
I've got a family and other interests and abilities, and hopefully about another 20 years of full-time work ahead of me.
Here's the Question:
Why should I stay in software?
Is it just money?  Have you faced this decision, and what and how did you decide? <comment><USER2> Web front-end/back-end took the brunt of the impact of the commoditization of software developers and is rapidly on it's way to becoming the McJob of tech. Everything you said is why I stayed away from web technologies as much as I could in my career. Head over to work at a platform company (e.g. Salesforce, Atlassian) where they care more about reliability and maintainability than rewriting everything in the latest hot framework. Another option is to head over to IoT, embedded development, or some other area of systems development. Fundamentals still matter, evolution of technologies is benefit driven rather than fad driven, and experience is considered a positive.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you're having to ask why to stay, and not why to go... perhaps it is time to move on?

A wise man told me when I was really young, "Computers can be a great hobby or a great career, but not both". As I get older, I see more and more people burning out...

</comment><comment><USER4> You can stay in software but move to more conservative industry, like oil and gas. Lots of SCADA is JAVA based, some solutions have HTML based GUIs. And the industry is centered around reliability, experience counts there.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the reply, this is an industry I hadn't considered.

Any suggestions for companies, job sites? I'm near Boston and not looking to relocate.

<comment><USER4> I'm not based in US (I live in Europe). Long time ago I worked for Honeywell (they do lots of industries and their headquaters are in US, their SCADA products often need local software specialist who knows how to integrate it with other systems- in my country I was the only person capable of doing this), also Johnsons Control (not Oil and Gas but industry in general). Also Rockwell, Siemens, GE - these giants are like FAANG in industry, with many divisions in different areas of proper industry. And each of them want to be 'smart', not only to hang equipment on the wall. There is lots of demand for software engineering there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I went through a similar situation years ago. I have been working at a Nonprofit for ten years now. Same insanity as when I worked at for profit companies but more stability. I also love Salesforce.</comment>


GCHQ and European spy agencies worked together on mass surveillance - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/01/gchq-europe-spy-agencies-mass-surveillance-snowden/

<comment><USER2> Well, seems to lend more support to this: [http://arstechnica.com/tech- policy/2013/10/europe-wont-save-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech- policy/2013/10/europe-wont-save-you-why-e-mail-is-probably-safer-in-the-us/)</comment>


The BITCOIN PUB - Cryptocurrency Forum / Community - <AUTHOR> http://thebitcoin.pub <comment><AUTHOR> My brother is building a small community around Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency, mostly from his growing YouTube Channel and YouTube was temporarily banning him from commenting on his own videos to respond to questions... which is odd and disappointing because he's highly engaged.

Anyways, he needed a better solution to just engage and respond to his followers and so we put together a community system using Discourse, which is fantastic (and using Mailgun as a mail server). Pretty standard stuff, but, very scalable.

And ultimately it solves his problem of engaging with his community!

It's new, but, it's growing and I think what I like most of all is that it's using some really best-in-class community / forum software. That is all. Enjoy!</comment>


Former Google Exec Turns Whistleblower On Company's Tax Avoidance In The UK - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/19/former-google-exec-turns-whistleblower-on-companys-tax-avoidance-machinations-in-the-uk/ <comment><USER3> This is techcrunch blog spam of the actual story in the sunday times.

actual story: [http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/ar...](http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1261720.ece)

previous discussion: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5730861>

</comment><comment><USER4> "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes a public duty to pay more than the law demands."

Judge Learned Hand in Helvering vs Gregory, 1934.

<comment><USER5> I suspect though that that US Supreme Court ruling has little impact and no jurisdiction on an HMRC (HMRC = Her Majesty's Revenue and Customers, the UK's equivalent to the IRS) investigation into the tax practices of Google's UK subsidiary.

<comment><USER6> Would you prefer Lord Clyde in Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services v Inland Revenue?

 _No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's not likely illegal.

Anyways, 'immoral' is all relative to one's political philosophy. Some find taxes immoral - especially when they're used to bailout and/or protect competitors, bomb and maim 'enemies' and spy on it's own citizens.

Depriving poorly run corrupt governments of tax benefits everyone, including said government.

<comment><USER8> Tax in the UK makes me very sad. For businesses big and small, and for individuals like me, it's a huge burden.

A lot of business owners in my town have been forced out of business by local taxes. They lose business to charity shops, which sell donated, or sometimes new items, and pay profits to charity. They do not pay local tax, and often do not pay rent [1]. In some cases, after paying much of the money to the owner, that charity profit can be slim[4]. It is hard to compete with those who do not pay tax. It is not a level playing field.

I'm sure that those trying to compete with Google, Amazon, and similar large companies that pay very little tax feel the same way.

The times article says "Although Google's London sales staff would negotiate and sign contracts with British customers, and cash was paid into a UK bank account, deals were technically booked through its Dublin office to minimise its liabilities here. Jones, a devout Christian and father of four, is ready to hand over a cache of more than 100,000 emails and documents to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), detailing the "concocted scheme". "[2]

At the same time, Google's CEO made a thinly veiled threat to withdraw work from the UK if the government here plays hard ball on tax. BP would claim that fines made against it in the US were politically motivated[3], and with some credibility. I think that whether Google is fined in this case will be very much a political decision. Which perhaps supports your point.

[1][http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d8bee184-112c-11e1-a95c-00144feabd...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d8bee184-112c-11e1-a95c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2TmyzKMVH) [2][http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/ar...](http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1261720.ece) [3]<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22549710> [4][http://www.independent.co.uk/money/money-charity-shops- and-t...](http://www.independent.co.uk/money/money-charity-shops-and-the-cash- that-wont-reach-the-needy-1276435.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love when someone wants to use the word "scam" and "immoral" when talking about "technically" avoiding taxes. It's either legal or it ain't - <USER2> there's nothing that shows it was illegal.

<comment><USER10> Something can be legal and also immoral.

<comment><USER11> Immoral according to what ? to whom ?

There is only the law , the rest is b.s.

<comment><USER10> So you solved the question of what's right and wrong. All we need is some people, elected using a byzantine voting process, who, with weird rules and centuries of inertia, come up with the Truth. That's it, everyone else can pack their things and go home.

Why do you elevate the law in such a way? It's possible to have a perfectly productive discussion about whether and why something is immoral without even so much as mentioning the law. People define what's moral and what's not just how people define what's legal and what's not.

The discussion about whether something is immoral or not is one that is completely separate from whether something is illegal.

<comment><USER12> Yes, but morality cannot be adjudicated whereas legality can.

So, when it's important for a point to be settled definitively, talking about the legality is generally more fruitful than talking about the morality. I suspect that was camus's point.

<comment><USER10> It's not important for this to be settled definitively. I suspect it never will be. Plus, I think many here probably agree that it's likely that Google didn't do anything illegal. So why discuss something most people agree on? That's pointless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Whistleblowers pointing fingers in the wrong direction. What they're doing is most certainly legal. What should be looked as is the legislation enabling it. Or rather if it's even a bad thing in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER14> When Google first came out with "don't be evil", this was exactly the kind of thing I thought they wanted to avoid, especially since the corporate bogeyman of the day was Microsoft and they were doing exactly this (Apple too). Turns out I don't really have any idea what Google thinks don't be evil means. It looks like they operate like any other corporation, where the only people they truly care about in a bottom-line sense are shareholders. May as well be up front about that. From what I've seen, a better motto is probably:

      Don't be evil unless it makes money than being good,
      but never admit to evil or talk about it in any way.

</comment><comment><USER15> Isn't this just the Double Irish scheme[1] that Google and other multi- nationals have been doing for a long time now? How is it "whistle blowing" if something is public knowledge? If it goes beyond that, then the article hasn't really done a good job at pointing that out.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement>

</comment><comment><USER16> This is just another reason we should ditch corporate income tax. It never made any sense anyway.

<comment><USER17> Corporate income tax makes perfect sense. If you have a system that: 1) taxes income to persons; 2) treats corporations as distinct legal persons, as both the U.S.'s and U.K.'s does, a corporate income tax falls out naturally. That is to say, the fact that the corporation and the shareholders are taxed distinctly is a natural consequence of the fact that the "corporation's money" is distinct from the "shareholders' money." This fact is the basis for the advantages of corporate form: that a lawsuit against the corporation only endangers the "corporation's money" not the "shareholders' money."

The resulting state of affairs creates a common sense choice for businesses: if you want to treat the corporation as a separate entity when it comes to legal liability, you also have to treat the corporation as a separate entity when it comes to taxation.

But though a corporate income tax is theoretically justified, the challenges of enforcing one may make it desirable to get rid of it as a practical matter.

<comment><USER16> >But though a corporate income tax is theoretically justified, the challenges of enforcing one may make it desirable to get rid of it as a practical matter.

That was my point. Whether or not you can morally justify it, corporate income tax is easy for multinationals to avoid, putting smaller corporations at a disadvantage and forcing companies to operate more inefficiently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Every time people say "What's the problem if they're obeying the law?"

These companies are using very complicated schemes, bought from well funded well staffed multinational accountancy companies (any single one of the big four has more staff in an off shore tax haven than the HMRC has in total). Don't forget that law consists both of statute and case law - a bunch of this stuff has never been before a judge so we don't know if it's legal or not.

These schemes are not normal tax planning. While they're not tax evasion (use of clearly illegal methods to not pay tax) they're borderline, and may not actually be legal. For these schemes to be legal requires a suspension of disbelief - for example, Starbucks doesn't make any profit in the UK[1]. (Baffling if you've ever bought a £4 coffee.)

Forensic accounts investigation is complex, time consuming, and expensive. It's not surprising that overworked under funded understaffed tax offices can't spare the resources to investigate companies who are trying to obfuscate their tax arrangements. When companies are caught they negotiate deals to repay some, but not all, of the tax. Not paying your tax and risking getting caught is just a cost of doing business.[2]

A company using English staff, in English offices, to sell English products to English staff working for other English companies, using English money through English banks should probably be paying tax in England, even if the company have arranged for someone in an Irish office to sign a bit of paper at the end of the chain.

And we've got ourselves into this weird situation. The big four firms lend staff to HMRC to help draft tax law. The big four firms then use their inside knowledge of these laws, that they helped to draft, to create schemes on the edge of legality[3ab].

What I'm gently worried about is an employee of Google (apparently from an accounts department but maybe I got that wrong) siphoning off 100,000 emails, and keeping them for _years_ before coming forward. That feels like a significant fail, but I have no idea of the law around that kind of thing. I trust that Google has much tighter controls around user data.

[1] ([http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/starbucks- is-...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/starbucks-is-right-not- to-pay-uk-tax-because-it-makes-no-profit-says-coffee-chains-tax- advisor-8589459.html))

[2] ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/20/inland- revenu...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/dec/20/inland-revenue- sweetheart-tax-deals))

[3a] (<http://www.ion.icaew.com/TaxFaculty/26745>)

[3b] ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/26/accountancy-f...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/26/accountancy- firms-knowledge-treasury-avoid-tax))

<comment><USER19> I am angry that the law is so flawed, that the authorities are so slow to act, that the accountancy firms employed to write the laws were not impartial, and that companies negotiate special deals with HMRC.

I cannot blame Google (or any other company) though. In the same way I don't blame them for filing software patents to be used defensively. The system is broken - either through case law, reformation, or deterring windfall taxes - we must do something about it.

<comment><USER17> Without addressing the tax situation directly: the fact of the matter is that civilized society is not possible without good faith on the part of people charged with following the law. The threat of enforcement mostly exists to keep honest people honest. It's not really practically possible to police a citizenry determined not to follow the law in good faith.

Always blaming the system is not productive. If the system has to be air-tight to get a usable result, you've already lost the battle.

<comment><USER20> While you're general point is true, I don't think it's terribly relevant here. This is definitely a case of the system being broken.

Taxes are a necessary evil to begin with; they're a direct impingement on the freedom of citizens. Making the laws surrounding them so hideously complicated makes it much worse. No one's really asking for air-tightness, just low enough complexity that we don't have to have full-time professionals to make sense of it. Taxes should be _easy_.

<comment><USER17> What makes you think taxes should be easy? Defining income is hard. Defining income in an international context is exponentially harder.

The corporations in this case are not using obscure loopholes to avoid taxes. They're taking advantage of necessary complexities in the tax code: that it taxes net income rather than revenue, and that it taxes income reasonably related to the jurisdiction and not all income everywhere. What's complex is the situation: accounting for the income of huge multi national businesses that have customers and employees in dozens of countries, whose income involves transactions with pieces spread out all over the world.

Its like saying that the Windows kernel should be simple. Sure, as long as you give up decades of backwards compatibility and a multitude of hardware support you could make it simple. Analogously, the only way to simplify the tax code might be to give up on taxing corporations. But you can't jump to the conclusion that the complexity is unnecessary.

<comment><USER21> What makes you think we should be taxing income?

There are other means of taxing the citizenry and funding the government. Why should we tax the compensation for work, physical and/or mental, of the population? Better would be to narrow the compliance field to taxing consumption. And in the US we are generally voracious consumers (can speak for the UK).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I would like to point out that this is about Google actually breaking the law and not just gaming the system. Seems most commenters assume that this is about gaming the system. Google is walking a fine line here and if they step over that line they can't expect folks to go easy on them.

</comment><comment><USER23> I am in favor of replacing all income tax with a consumption tax- one that is really easy to calculate, like the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax may have some kinks that need to be ironed out, but the concept is really solid.

<comment><USER20> My understanding is that consumption taxes (we're talking about things like sales tax right?) disproportionately affect poorer people, who spend more of their income, as opposed to rich people who tend to invest more. I'm not 100% sure of the science, but it makes sense. I'd rather just see a simple income tax.

<comment><USER23> Yes, typically a sales (consumption tax) does effect to poor more than the rich, because the poor tend to consume 100% of their earnings to survive, whereas the rich only consume a very small portion of their overall earnings.

The Fair Tax attempts to address this via 2 mechanisms- first, it does not tax used goods. Poorer people are more likely to buy used goods than new ones.

Second, the Prebate. Under the Fair Tax, the a prebate is given, based on the Federal Poverty Line, and the amount of tax that would be paid if a family spent up to the federal poverty line. Families that are spending less than the Federal Poverty line actually would pay negative taxes, and those spending more, would progressively be taxed more.

As written, some analysts of the Fair Tax have criticized it for putting the squeeze on the middle class- because many spend everything/most of what they earn, but earn well over the poverty line. Whereas the wealthy still consume very little of their overall income, and the poorest of the poor pay negative taxes.

I would tweak the prebate a little from this model, requiring the legislature to specify the prebate level each year as a part of their budget. This means they can't hide behind tweaking the way the poverty line is calculated- they have to make the decision directly, and be held accountable for it. I would also require the legislature to set the actual tax rate annually or at some other regular interval.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Somebody is really trying hard to spread this negative press against Google.

The issue isn't even news, it's well known that Google and many other large multi-international companies do the Double-Irish to avoid taxes. Until Congress plugs the loophope, what should Google do, they hire companies to manage their taxes and the hired company does it to the best of their ability, who is to blame? Our representatives, IMO.

</comment><comment><USER25> Go Google! Perhaps? An issue I always face when considering tax evasion is that I'm pleased when someone manages to avoid at least some compulsory taxation, but I'm disturbed that it's often very large and very wealthy organizations, which suggests a level of corruption (conscious or emergent) in our systems of Government.</comment>


The Magna Carta Essay - <AUTHOR> http://collegemisery.blogspot.com/2011/12/henchminion-sends-in-tale-of-magna.html <comment><USER3> Keep in mind that the essay, as shown in the OP, is not what was finally submitted by Aaron Kerzner to his class. This is: [http://dimensionsofhistory.homestead.com/files/2008/londonpr...](http://dimensionsofhistory.homestead.com/files/2008/londonprojects/Kerzner_London.pdf)

For all of you claiming it's unfair to name this chump: he posted the damn thing _with his name on it_ to the public internet. It's even more amusing because what he turned in was even more amateurish than the original. It's titled "Magna Carta's _Affect_ on the Class Structure in London", even though it scarcely discusses the class structure in London; he misspells "dimensions" in the header, even with the aid of a computer; it's white on crimson with gratuitous visual aids; the typesetting changes erratically between double and single spaced; finally, what few sentences of original writing there is to stitch the thing together betrays not so much any actual thought so much as a vague assertion that the plagiarized paper was somehow about the topic he was assigned to write about. That it was even accepted as college level coursework is a stain on the reputation not just of Aaron Kerzner, but of Drs. Michael Swanson and Debra Mulligan (who, even put together, couldn't catch this clown) and Roger Williams University.

By the way, this guy is in our industry: <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/aaron- kerzner/1a/b96/3b0>. And he _majored_ in history.

<comment><USER4> I think what you are doing is wrong. You shouldn't judge a person based on a single essay. Whatever you think about this particular essay, it's not deserving of this witchhunt.

Edit: He should have failed the class and received a stern talking to. There is a reason students are told not to quote from homework assignments of other students. The bachelor thesis or master thesis is the first proper scientific work any student does and if you plagarize in those an instant gameover is expected and deserved. But class homework? Certainly not.

<comment><USER5> In an ideal world plagiarists would always be caught and always be failed. No need for dire consequences. Just no rewards. In the real world, most plagiarists are never punished even if they are caught. If you're a TA or prof and you think you've been given plagiarized work, you need to have iron-clad proof before you can even think about breathing the 'P' word. You can easily wind up in as much trouble as the student if your proof isn't solid! You have very little to go on if the student is at least smart enough to paraphrase and avoid copy/pasting complete sentences. I've been given work I was 99% sure was plagiarized but, since I couldn't prove it, I couldn't do anything more than give it a low grade. Even when you can prove plagiarism has occurred, you're in for a _lot_ of extra work. Usually it's easier to just talk to the student and tell them to withdraw from your class.

Since plagiarists are so hard to catch and punish, it's important to make examples of the ones who are caught. You can argue that this was "just class homework", but students who plagiarize homework are the same ones who hire ghost-writers to do a one-off term paper or thesis for them. If they can get by without doing the unimportant work, odds are they won't learn how to do the important work.

In this case, absolutely make this kid's life hell. It doesn't matter if he only cheated that one time or if that's how he got his entire degree. What's important is that other students see that plagiarism can come back to haunt them long after they've gotten their degrees. The student's profs ought to be made to sweat a little too. Missing or failing to punish plagiarism is entirely forgivable for the reasons I have stated above. Giving a passing grade to an obvious joke paper shows that they were negligent, and that's another matter entirely.

<comment><USER4> Have empathy man. Empathy.

<comment><USER5> "Do you honestly believe you can judge the abilities and work ethic of this guy based on one essay?"

His abilities, no. His work ethic, and ethics in general, yes.

I've been the hard-working student who sat back and watched other kids buy their grades. It was truly disheartening. Students who cheat have zero respect for the work of their peers and deserve no respect in return.

If you don't understand why taking credit for work you have not done is wrong, then there's absolutely nothing more I can say to you.

<comment><USER4> It's wrong and it's pathetic and I never said otherwise.

But I do believe that everyone always deserves a second chance. Always.

<comment><USER6> I'm a pathetic bleeding heart, give the world a hug, make love not war, hippie tree hugger. Second chances that aren't earned are often wasted. It's often a cruelty, not a kindness, to be too easy on people who are going around fucking up. It frequently fails to foster real change and just helps people stay trapped.

Not saying one should always be a hardass. But defaulting to candyass isn't any better. It's got to be a judgment call.

<comment><USER4> It's a single essay. A single one. There is nothing that's a judgment call about this. A failed class. That's it.

<comment><USER6> Sounds to me like you are making a judgment call based on "it's a single essay" -- ie not a pattern of behavior. Frankly, I haven't read through the whole thing, so you may know more than I do about this specific case. I am not saying you are wrong in this instance. I am only suggesting that sweeping statements like "someone _always_ deserves a second chance" should not go unquestioned.

I am slow to condemn people and fairly quick to forgive and quick to have compassion. But I am equally clear the minute you make it policy that "everyone always gets a second chance" and then _advertise_ that fact, you grow your problems rather than shrinking them. My personal policy is "forgiveness is a gift but trust is earned". Somehow, people are quick to ID me as a forgiving sort and then promptly conclude I'm a doormat and they can shit all over me to their heart's content. Doormat? Maybe. Toilet? No thank you. Take your personal crap elsewhere. So I am very clear that sweeping, publicly advertised policies of "guaranteed second chance" cause more problems than they solve and tend to create situations where you have no choice but to be harder on people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> When I was in high school, in an English class unit on journalism, I learned how the United Press caught a competing news organization (Hearst, as I recall) faking stories about the eastern front in World War I. The United Press reporters inserted details about a Russian government official named Nelotsky in their news stories, and watched the statements about Nelotsky get copied into Heart reports. There was just one problem with Hearst's journalistic procedure: there wasn't any such Russian official. The name "Nelotsky" came from reversing the spelling of the English word "stolen" and adding a Russian-looking "ky" ending.

[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/246-dgb-uneasy- legac...](http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/246-dgb-uneasy-legacy.pdf)

[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D16FF3B5B1...](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D16FF3B5B11738DDDAC0A94D9405B888DF1D3)

Similarly, in the 1990s I noticed that a popular page on my personal website was being copied diligently by a college student for his personal website. I inserted a fake entry, based on the Greek word for "steal." I also put a link at that entry leading to the copyright notice page on my personal website, which has a distinctive filename unique to my site. When the student copied the page again, I was able to show the site administrator of his site that the student had plainly violated the site user agreement at that academic institution, which specifically required students not to plagiarize for their postings on the university site.

I didn't do a lot of public outing of that student--but you had better believe I still remember who he was. Teachers do well to teach students early and often to use their own noggins and to do their own writing, giving proper credit with correct citation form to sources they rely on. That's a better education than just letting students copy whatever they happen to see, without any analysis or thought at all.

</comment><comment><USER8> '"Discipulus tuus hunc tractatum non scripsit." Loosely translated to: "No taxation without representation."'

It actually means: "Your student did not write this essay"

<comment><USER9> And it's amusing to google that phrase.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Disclaimer: this is by no mean an endorsement of plagiarism in any of its forms.

It is one thing to catch someone plagiarizing an already fake essay. In my opinion though, exposing the cheater on the Internet by name is a punishment with far more severe consequences, that does not exactly fit the crime. Furthermore, we're not even assured that the student managed to get a passing grade for his version of the paper. If he did, maybe his teacher was also part of the problem.

This type of insensitive public lynching is so reminiscent of primary school. Fortunately, we grow up, develop a conscience and learn to regret some of the stupid acts we took, just because we could, that still reverberate in others in present days.

Before blowing your horn, please make sure that you're actually righting a wrong and are not causing more damage than you're repairing.

<comment><USER11> I can't imagine in what world plagiarism in college should be treated as some private affair that should be kept secret.

College students are adults. Plagiarism in order to achieve a college degree fraudulently is worthy of public attention.

Edit: note, "public attention" != "mob of ruthless assholes destroying someone's life".

<comment><USER12> There is a difference between:

1\. This alleged plagiarist's college convicting him and publicizing the fact that he has been judged a plagiarist by due process, and: 2\. A public _accusation_ of plagiarism without process of any kind.

Public attention to a conviction is entirely different from public attention to an accusation. I'm with you if you want convictions by due process of plagiarism in college to be worthy of public attention. I am not in favour of accusations like this to be brandished so enthusiastically.

<comment><USER11> Certainly there is a continuum in such matters. Some accusations deserve to be kept out of the public eyes. But I don't think it's at all reasonable to imagine that we can, or should, live in a world where all of our shames are private and outed only through a laborious and secretive trial process.

The flaws of the "court of opinion" are many and worthy of concern, but they shouldn't be used as an excuse to hide any mention of blatant wrong-doing.

This essay isn't a public denouncement, it's merely presenting information. Is this a call to a lynching? _"Aaron Kerzner of Boston, I blow my nose at you."_

<comment><USER12> Yes, I agree with you again. The author of this post is just one person. I am not saying whether he should or shouldn't name this person or link to a web page that appears to be an essay submitted as part of course work.

I am only speaking to what _we_ should do in response, namely laugh uproariously at what appears to be a finely crafted piece of work, and use it as a catalysts for serious discussion about where our institutions of higher education are failing, and eschew debating this named person's crimes or character. I think the essay would be just as thought-provoking if it left the person's name out, it would still pose difficult and important questions:

How does such an essay get accepted?

If someone cheats and gets a degree, how do they prosper in life? Should there be a correlation between honest work on a degree and success? If not, why do we care about the degree?

How much of submitting an essay is composing the essay, and how much is mechanically rearranging existing ideas into a form that passes the professorial filter?

Is there a Turing Test going on here? If a professor can't tell the original works apart from the plagiarized ones, is the test flawed, or is there really no distinction between the good and bad students?

I really like the post, it provides much grist for my Olde Mill, which lies just west of the Forest of Runnymede.

<comment><USER11> Indeed. For myself I prefer to be as open minded and forgiving of others as possible.

In this particular case the evidence seems rather damning, but there can always be plenty we aren't aware of, life is complicated. Personally I hope the accused can recover from this, though in general I think that if more college students realized that the shame of plagiarism could come back and bite them in the ass later in life that would probably be a good thing. College isn't play time. Nor should it be training wheels for adulthood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I remember writing a "trojan horse" essay in secondary school, but in my case the target was my history teacher. I had noticed there's little correlation between the effort I put into my assignments and the grades I got--they were always good-ish. So one time I wrote an essay, not just with factual errors, but filled with blatant nonsense. This passed with a good grade too, so it was time to escalate the issue.

</comment><comment><USER14> It reminds me of Neal Stephenson's Anathem where the Internet (called something else in the book) essentially became worthless because competing search engines polluted it with misinformation to screw with each others algorithms.

</comment><comment><USER15> The more I reflect on it, it seems that honeypots are the optimal way to conduct any sort of intelligence gathering.

<comment><USER16> I doubt the universal optimality, but various works contain fictitious entries. Like trap streets or phantom settlements in maps, or ghosts in telephone books.

<comment><USER15> One might think that just b/c entrapment is forbidden by US law that honepots are not used. All the law means is that the evidence directly gathered via entrapment can't be used.

Unregulated things like Craigslist and Tor likely offer law enforcement and intelligence agencies more "honeypot value" than they "cost" in terms of petty illegal behavior.

<comment><USER3> Besides, not all stings are entrapment, as many men discover upon soliciting the wrong hooker.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "they held a climactic battle in the forest of Runnymede, near the village of Bloor West"

Toronto joke?

</comment><comment><USER18> This whole exercise confirms that schools are rapidly becoming sorting institutions rather than learning institutions.

</comment><comment><USER19> This appears to be the guy's self-description on LinkedIn. He loves software- as-a-service:

Intense, energetic, and ambitious professional interested in staying as close to the bleeding edge as I can in the realm of SaaS, social, and mobile commerce.

I love fitness, tech, and good food.

found on <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/aaron-kerzner/1a/b96/3b0> (same school, approx graduation date)

</comment><comment><USER20> "Plagiarism Saves Time." <http://www.tanga.com/photos/570411/large>

</comment><comment><USER21> Forget the essay, he listed the course as "Hist203L:Dimentions of History Lab"...

</comment><comment><USER22> One thinks of Kipling's story "Dayspring Mishandled"...

</comment><comment><USER23> In what college course does that paper pass, regardless of plagiarism? WOW.

<comment><USER24> The website for the course, linked in the article, see here

<http://dimensionsofhistory.homestead.com/2008L.html>

is written just as poorly.

<comment><USER25> Ironically, the class is taught by Professor Mulligan. Heh.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Plagiarism & propaganda: the two evil anti-patterns of the written word. Those who don't understand the strengths, weaknesses and subtle tricks and traps of human language and communication are doomed to be victimized by those who do.

</comment><comment><USER27> It would be amusing to issue the college lecturer with a DMCA takedown order.

</comment><comment><USER28> An interesting observation about this is that there's just enough "truth" in the essay to make it a somewhat believable source: like John was titled/surnamed Lackland, the Magna Carta was signed at Runnymede - <USER2> the Wikipedia article isn't lying.

But that is, of course, different than plagiarism.

<comment><USER29> Unless you notice the part about him having been Duke of Hazzard. :-)

<comment><USER30> Any assignment that expects footnotes probably ought to have graders who scan the footnotes, and I find it particularly funny, in a grim and ghastly way, that no one tripped over the jests concentrated there. Bollock & Maidenhead _The Interminable History of English Law_ was mentioned in the original post. And _From Magna Carta ..._ (i.e., 1215) _... to Domesday Book_ (i.e., 1085)? Or D. Rumsfeld _Killing Will Make You Free_?</comment></comment></comment>