6 ms·

Uber and Lyft Are Adding Jobs, Not Just Stealing Them

30 points by ucha 10y ago

green_lunch 10y ago
They are adding jobs. However, we now having more people making less money for essentially the same job. It's a win for consumers, because it's more convenient and in some cases, cheaper. But it's a lose for the people that actually made a decent living driving who now are competing with college kids that are doing the same thing in their spare time without having any of the same startup costs. Uber and Lyft removed the barrier to entry by breaking the law and the monopoly the Taxi unions had over the entire industry. But the result is lower wages and benefits.
- mgraczyk 10y ago
  Why should the incumbents have security in their position, when as you pointed out college kids can do the same work at lower cost? It is unfair to the unemployed and to consumers to provide special protection to incumbents based solely on their position and earlier entry to the market. That is a classic case of rent seeking with governmental protection. Good for Uber and Lyft for breaking the law and pushing us out of that local minima. Sometimes you have to harm a few privileged rent seekers to remove coercive monopolies and reduce regulatory capture.
  - Qworg 10y ago
    It isn't just regulatory capture though - permits for taxis carry all sorts of protections for consumers. Those protections are guaranteed by law and I see no replacement for those protections from either Uber or Lyft. We used to have the free for all we're building towards and we regulated to stop it. Why won't history repeat itself?
    - bsbechtel 10y ago
      Protections for consumers that apparently comes at a much higher price point, which some consumers may not wish to pay. How is that protection for them?
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        As a consumer, you don't get to opt out of regulation "because you want to". You then create a race to the bottom, negatively affecting your fellow citizens. You don't want to pay for safe airlines? Non-rancid meat? Agriculture runoff regulation? Too bad.
        twoodfin 10y ago
        Your comment isn't an argument that the level of regulation (and subsequent regulatory capture) for the taxi industry in most U.S. cities is appropriate and on the whole beneficial. It's a much less controversial argument that some regulation is for the common good. Sure. Isn't it obvious that some level of regulation is too costly for consumers to justify the benefits they receive? To me, that's the charitable reading of bsbechtel's comment.
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        > Isn't it obvious that some level of regulation is too costly for consumers to justify the benefits they receive? To me, that's the charitable reading of bsbechtel's comment. I don't dispute this. If you want the regulation changed, vote on it. If you simply ignore it because you think it doesn't apply to you, I hope to see you go out of business.
        JWLong 10y ago
        ftfy > As a consumer, in $my_economic_model, you don't get to opt out of regulation "because you want to".
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Just calling it how it is in countries with a real working government.
    - petra 10y ago
      It isn't clear that the permits systems provided better protection than UBER's system, and there's at least theoretical reasons to think UBER's data rich system could become better than permits, especially if combined with stuff like background checks,etc.
      - Qworg 10y ago
        Agreed, but Uber has no reason to support background checks, etc. Any move towards regulation would make their business model fall apart.
      - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
        Does Uber support wheelchairs and disability accessibility?
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      As a consumer, I strongly prefer the protections I get from Uber/Lyft/Olacab to those that I get from the regulated taxis. For instance, some months back I got in an Ola to Delhi Airport. The guy took some crazy long route while pretending he didn't understand my broken Hindi (with very clear street names and pointed directions), and very nearly caused me to miss my flight. I took out the app and made a complaint while waiting for my flight. When I landed I got an email about my money being refunded. How effective do you think it'll be to try and make use of my government provided consumer protections? http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/doit_transport/Transport/Home/Contact+Us http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/doit_transport/Trans... Another wonderful thing we are getting from the regulators - protection against drivers of the wrong ethnic group. Imagine how terrible it would be to be driven by a Bihari? http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-shiv-sena-defends-marathi-mandatory-clause-for-auto-drivers-2126586 http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-shiv-sena-defends-marat... (Similarly, in the US, try to flag a taxi while black. Uber solved this problem, have the US regulators?) We stopped the "free for all" because the incumbent taxi monopoly captured the regulatory bodies. That's all. Rather than ideologically defending all regulation, why not focus on having good regulation?
      - Qworg 10y ago
        First, I'm speaking of the US. I have no experience in India. I'm certainly not defending all regulation, but unregulated taxis caused all sorts of problems in the past, which is why we regulated them. Background checks, improved guarantees of vehicle safety, minimum competency in English, etc. Why not have both? Break the monopoly, but create realistic and working regulations for all players.
        stormbrew 10y ago
        Something rather big has changed since the regulations were put into place (sometimes fairly recently, my city didn't cap taxi plates until the mid-90s). It used to be most taxis were gotten by hailing, and some by phoning. Neither allowed you to verify anything about the cab that eventually picked you up. Apps change this greatly, and now when I ask for an Uber I have reason more reason to trust that the person picking me up is an Uber driver, and has met the standards they established and I can verify in some way, than I ever did that the cabbie who picked me up is the one I called, or that they're a legally sanctioned taxi if I hailed it. This change is glossed over in this discussion a lot, but it is the single most important distinction between the old and new systems, and it definitely should reduce the barrier to entry when it comes to regulatory reasons. I'm absolutely in favour of maintaining extremely strict controls over vehicles that can pick people up off the street with no prior arrangement. Loosening that is a bad idea, and it's not really at issue in the current debate.
- force_reboot 10y ago
  Not sure why you're getting downvotes, this is completely accurate (except that the competitors aren't necessarily college kids, as a demographic they are closer to taxi drivers). But I would add that on net this is a good thing, and the beneficiaries are not just consumers, but the new drivers. The logic of the free market is fairly simple and intuitive. One reason people shy away from it is that they are subconsciously afraid of organized labor. The left have drummed it into people's heads that these people mean business, and if they beat you to a pulp it will be your own fault for threatening their livelihood [0]. [0] e.g. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7L_cuQJ1pQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7L_cuQJ1pQ
joshkpeterson 10y ago
Until they're all automated away at the first opportunity. Driving is not a long-term career plan anymore.
VodkaHaze 10y ago
Good to know quantity supplied/demanded is still related to price
a13n 10y ago
Yeah until they lay everyone off in favor of self-driving cars in 2 years...
- techthroway443 10y ago
  What seems to be the issue here? If you can get a machine to do something that a human can do then you give that human the opportunity to place his focus, time and attention elsewhere.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > If you can get a machine to do something that a human can do then you give that human the opportunity to place his focus, time and attention elsewhere. Assuming the human was rational, what they were doing was already the thing that provided them the greatest utility of the options they had -- if putting their focus, time, and attention elsewhere was more beneficial to them, they already would have been doing it. If you remove that option, unless there is some better new option created for that same human -- rather than merely displacing them from their best option -- then they experience a net utility loss.
  - Hydraulix989 10y ago
    The issue is that the only jobs that seem to be vanishing through such "opportunities" (what a weasel word) are all unskilled labor (easiest to automate). Sure, doing work in the car instead of driving home in California freeway traffic for an hour a day is an opportunity, except that's not the problem here... Most people that work unskilled labor jobs today aren't qualified to work alternative skilled jobs. A large class of unemployed (and unemployable) workers is a nightmare situation and is detrimental in any economy.
    - spdegabrielle 10y ago
      There is dignity in work.
    - LoSboccacc 10y ago
boona 10y ago
"Stealing" jobs, is that the narrative we're suppose to subscribe to? Or are they breaking up a government backed monopoly and democratizing it. I personally don't care if there aren't any net new jobs if they've created thousands of small entrepreneurs and provided much needed competition. Side note: I find it interesting how media outlets decide what the debate is, create a false dichotomy, then us simpletons are just suppose to pick a side. What do you think chuck? Is it ok that they're stealing jobs?
- vertex-four 10y ago
  > created thousands of small entrepreneurs Or, in other terms, removed stable jobs from the economy and replaced them with risky ones that require workers to provide their own capital with no promise of reward. Entrepreneurship in the sense of forcing low-wage workers to provide their own capital and take on a disproportionate share of the risk, while the company itself makes money with relatively little risk, is not a good thing.
  - cynicalkane 10y ago
    If you think taxi jobs are stable and well-paying and don't cost any capital... I've got some bad news for you.
- EGreg 10y ago
  Jobs are becoming more unstable, lower paying, higher risk. If Uber didn't do it, someone else would. Go into business for themselves? These centralized platforms even set the price on behalf of their "entrepreneurs". They can squeeze providers anytime, as Amazon squeezed publishers, as Apple Facebook and Twitter pushed around app developers etc. Don't be fooled. This is the dynamic. Centralized platforms squeeze producers and make them compete globally. Jobs shmobs. As soon as self driving cars go mainstream, all those jobs will be gone. Providers will alwas be squeezed. We as a society should stop expecting everyone to produce in order to not be homeless. There is no economic law that says demand for human labor will always be high. We need to tax the machines to fund unconditional basic income.
pessimizer 10y ago
This is intentionally misleading (but in a typical, not uncommon way.) If you want to see if employment has expanded, you count hours, not employees. But, again, this is commonly done when a low unemployment/high employment rate is needed for press purposes - it's the reason why U-3 is used in government press releases instead of U-6, which also includes part-time workers who want full time employment. This is not a universal standard - in Germany, for example, the distributed unemployment rates include do that category (and others.) Even worse, US media (NYT, WaPo) frequently compare nominal US and German rates as if they were measured in the same way.
kumarski 10y ago
Before Uber in SF, there were 2,000 taxis. There are now 20,000 Ubers in SF. Bad for the environment, good for jobs.
- tonmoy 10y ago
  Those extra Ubers have surely reduced some cars (which are worse). Not saying the reduced cars outweigh the added cars, but could be worth considering when thinking about the environmental impact.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

30 points by ucha 10y ago

They are adding jobs. However, we now having more people making less money for essentially the same job. It's a win for consumers, because it's more convenient and in some cases, cheaper. But it's a lose for the people that actually made a decent living driving who now are competing with college kids that are doing the same thing in their spare time without having any of the same startup costs. Uber and Lyft removed the barrier to entry by breaking the law and the monopoly the Taxi unions had over the entire industry. But the result is lower wages and benefits.

mgraczyk 10y ago
Why should the incumbents have security in their position, when as you pointed out college kids can do the same work at lower cost? It is unfair to the unemployed and to consumers to provide special protection to incumbents based solely on their position and earlier entry to the market. That is a classic case of rent seeking with governmental protection. Good for Uber and Lyft for breaking the law and pushing us out of that local minima. Sometimes you have to harm a few privileged rent seekers to remove coercive monopolies and reduce regulatory capture.
- Qworg 10y ago
  It isn't just regulatory capture though - permits for taxis carry all sorts of protections for consumers. Those protections are guaranteed by law and I see no replacement for those protections from either Uber or Lyft. We used to have the free for all we're building towards and we regulated to stop it. Why won't history repeat itself?
  - bsbechtel 10y ago
    Protections for consumers that apparently comes at a much higher price point, which some consumers may not wish to pay. How is that protection for them?
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      As a consumer, you don't get to opt out of regulation "because you want to". You then create a race to the bottom, negatively affecting your fellow citizens. You don't want to pay for safe airlines? Non-rancid meat? Agriculture runoff regulation? Too bad.
      - twoodfin 10y ago
        Your comment isn't an argument that the level of regulation (and subsequent regulatory capture) for the taxi industry in most U.S. cities is appropriate and on the whole beneficial. It's a much less controversial argument that some regulation is for the common good. Sure. Isn't it obvious that some level of regulation is too costly for consumers to justify the benefits they receive? To me, that's the charitable reading of bsbechtel's comment.
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        > Isn't it obvious that some level of regulation is too costly for consumers to justify the benefits they receive? To me, that's the charitable reading of bsbechtel's comment. I don't dispute this. If you want the regulation changed, vote on it. If you simply ignore it because you think it doesn't apply to you, I hope to see you go out of business.
      - JWLong 10y ago
        ftfy > As a consumer, in $my_economic_model, you don't get to opt out of regulation "because you want to".
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Just calling it how it is in countries with a real working government.
  - petra 10y ago
    It isn't clear that the permits systems provided better protection than UBER's system, and there's at least theoretical reasons to think UBER's data rich system could become better than permits, especially if combined with stuff like background checks,etc.
    - Qworg 10y ago
      Agreed, but Uber has no reason to support background checks, etc. Any move towards regulation would make their business model fall apart.
    - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
      Does Uber support wheelchairs and disability accessibility?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    As a consumer, I strongly prefer the protections I get from Uber/Lyft/Olacab to those that I get from the regulated taxis. For instance, some months back I got in an Ola to Delhi Airport. The guy took some crazy long route while pretending he didn't understand my broken Hindi (with very clear street names and pointed directions), and very nearly caused me to miss my flight. I took out the app and made a complaint while waiting for my flight. When I landed I got an email about my money being refunded. How effective do you think it'll be to try and make use of my government provided consumer protections? http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/doit_transport/Transport/Home/Contact+Us http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/doit_transport/Trans... Another wonderful thing we are getting from the regulators - protection against drivers of the wrong ethnic group. Imagine how terrible it would be to be driven by a Bihari? http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-shiv-sena-defends-marathi-mandatory-clause-for-auto-drivers-2126586 http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-shiv-sena-defends-marat... (Similarly, in the US, try to flag a taxi while black. Uber solved this problem, have the US regulators?) We stopped the "free for all" because the incumbent taxi monopoly captured the regulatory bodies. That's all. Rather than ideologically defending all regulation, why not focus on having good regulation?
    - Qworg 10y ago
      First, I'm speaking of the US. I have no experience in India. I'm certainly not defending all regulation, but unregulated taxis caused all sorts of problems in the past, which is why we regulated them. Background checks, improved guarantees of vehicle safety, minimum competency in English, etc. Why not have both? Break the monopoly, but create realistic and working regulations for all players.
      - stormbrew 10y ago
        Something rather big has changed since the regulations were put into place (sometimes fairly recently, my city didn't cap taxi plates until the mid-90s). It used to be most taxis were gotten by hailing, and some by phoning. Neither allowed you to verify anything about the cab that eventually picked you up. Apps change this greatly, and now when I ask for an Uber I have reason more reason to trust that the person picking me up is an Uber driver, and has met the standards they established and I can verify in some way, than I ever did that the cabbie who picked me up is the one I called, or that they're a legally sanctioned taxi if I hailed it. This change is glossed over in this discussion a lot, but it is the single most important distinction between the old and new systems, and it definitely should reduce the barrier to entry when it comes to regulatory reasons. I'm absolutely in favour of maintaining extremely strict controls over vehicles that can pick people up off the street with no prior arrangement. Loosening that is a bad idea, and it's not really at issue in the current debate.
force_reboot 10y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvotes, this is completely accurate (except that the competitors aren't necessarily college kids, as a demographic they are closer to taxi drivers). But I would add that on net this is a good thing, and the beneficiaries are not just consumers, but the new drivers. The logic of the free market is fairly simple and intuitive. One reason people shy away from it is that they are subconsciously afraid of organized labor. The left have drummed it into people's heads that these people mean business, and if they beat you to a pulp it will be your own fault for threatening their livelihood [0]. [0] e.g. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7L_cuQJ1pQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7L_cuQJ1pQ

joshkpeterson 10y ago

Until they're all automated away at the first opportunity. Driving is not a long-term career plan anymore.

VodkaHaze 10y ago

Good to know quantity supplied/demanded is still related to price

a13n 10y ago

Yeah until they lay everyone off in favor of self-driving cars in 2 years...

techthroway443 10y ago
What seems to be the issue here? If you can get a machine to do something that a human can do then you give that human the opportunity to place his focus, time and attention elsewhere.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > If you can get a machine to do something that a human can do then you give that human the opportunity to place his focus, time and attention elsewhere. Assuming the human was rational, what they were doing was already the thing that provided them the greatest utility of the options they had -- if putting their focus, time, and attention elsewhere was more beneficial to them, they already would have been doing it. If you remove that option, unless there is some better new option created for that same human -- rather than merely displacing them from their best option -- then they experience a net utility loss.
- Hydraulix989 10y ago
  The issue is that the only jobs that seem to be vanishing through such "opportunities" (what a weasel word) are all unskilled labor (easiest to automate). Sure, doing work in the car instead of driving home in California freeway traffic for an hour a day is an opportunity, except that's not the problem here... Most people that work unskilled labor jobs today aren't qualified to work alternative skilled jobs. A large class of unemployed (and unemployable) workers is a nightmare situation and is detrimental in any economy.
  - spdegabrielle 10y ago
    There is dignity in work.
  - LoSboccacc 10y ago

boona 10y ago

"Stealing" jobs, is that the narrative we're suppose to subscribe to? Or are they breaking up a government backed monopoly and democratizing it. I personally don't care if there aren't any net new jobs if they've created thousands of small entrepreneurs and provided much needed competition. Side note: I find it interesting how media outlets decide what the debate is, create a false dichotomy, then us simpletons are just suppose to pick a side. What do you think chuck? Is it ok that they're stealing jobs?

vertex-four 10y ago
> created thousands of small entrepreneurs Or, in other terms, removed stable jobs from the economy and replaced them with risky ones that require workers to provide their own capital with no promise of reward. Entrepreneurship in the sense of forcing low-wage workers to provide their own capital and take on a disproportionate share of the risk, while the company itself makes money with relatively little risk, is not a good thing.
- cynicalkane 10y ago
  If you think taxi jobs are stable and well-paying and don't cost any capital... I've got some bad news for you.
EGreg 10y ago
Jobs are becoming more unstable, lower paying, higher risk. If Uber didn't do it, someone else would. Go into business for themselves? These centralized platforms even set the price on behalf of their "entrepreneurs". They can squeeze providers anytime, as Amazon squeezed publishers, as Apple Facebook and Twitter pushed around app developers etc. Don't be fooled. This is the dynamic. Centralized platforms squeeze producers and make them compete globally. Jobs shmobs. As soon as self driving cars go mainstream, all those jobs will be gone. Providers will alwas be squeezed. We as a society should stop expecting everyone to produce in order to not be homeless. There is no economic law that says demand for human labor will always be high. We need to tax the machines to fund unconditional basic income.

pessimizer 10y ago

This is intentionally misleading (but in a typical, not uncommon way.) If you want to see if employment has expanded, you count hours, not employees. But, again, this is commonly done when a low unemployment/high employment rate is needed for press purposes - it's the reason why U-3 is used in government press releases instead of U-6, which also includes part-time workers who want full time employment. This is not a universal standard - in Germany, for example, the distributed unemployment rates include do that category (and others.) Even worse, US media (NYT, WaPo) frequently compare nominal US and German rates as if they were measured in the same way.

kumarski 10y ago

Before Uber in SF, there were 2,000 taxis. There are now 20,000 Ubers in SF. Bad for the environment, good for jobs.

tonmoy 10y ago
Those extra Ubers have surely reduced some cars (which are worse). Not saying the reduced cars outweigh the added cars, but could be worth considering when thinking about the environmental impact.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]