5 ms·
You're wrong on all points. + That there are market controls ensures the viability of the system, that alone doesn't speak to necessarily how it was distribute
by jomamaxx 10y ago
You're wrong on all points.
+ That there are market controls ensures the viability of the system, that alone doesn't speak to necessarily how it was distributed. But you've contradicted yourself - and I don't think you grasp my argument: Uber vs. drivers is an infinitely large imbalance than cab-owners vs. drivers.
Putting the 'profits' in local cab owners - all things equal - is still better than putting all the profits in Uber.
+ "Where do you think the money comes from? Not being responsible just means they don't get to make choices - they're forced to accept whatever the car owner says."
Again you contradict yourself: Uber drives are more forcibly required to 'accept what uber says' - then any cab driver is forced to accept what an owner says. But again you missed point point: Cab companies and drives are businesses, and they can make longer term decisions about insurance and capital allocation. Cab owners will not run their business at a loss. Many Uber drivers, probably are running their business at a loss.
"Then why was medallion ownership the single best investment in the last 30 years? Compete for talent? Where?"
+ One, I don't believe you, and two, they compete for talent (i.e. drivers) like any other entity. Drivers can work for another owner, another cab company. There is a massive diversity of Cab owners in any region. This diversity creates competition. Uber is a de-facto monopoly in the service that they provide, given them even more power.
"Uber has crated jobs" - Uber has created a means for people to get around regulatory issues - earn mostly less than minimum wage, by making short term decisions about their work vs. long term investment in capex (i.e. cars) - and reaps 100% of the profits from a system.
Now - if we want to have a discussion about whether or not cab companies regulatory framework are appropriate, that's fine. But make no mistake - almost all of the benefit from Uber goes to Uber, and Uber riders, not the drivers.
- icebraining 10y agoI fully admit I may be wrong, though I don't believe I have contradicted myself. Are Uber drivers running at a loss? Perhaps. At least the analysis I've seen (such as [1]) don't point to that, especially if we assume drivers aren't buying an extra car exclusively for Uber (just wearing it more). The earnings are crap, but then again, the NYT article I linked above mentioned pre-tax income of $19k, which would be around $11/h today. And there more people driving, so the overall effect is positive. The monopolization effect is worrying, but while it may be naive, I believe it's a short-term concern. Uber has no "moat" - especially as they refuse to actually hire people, hence they can "hop" between apps -, and while some competitors may be in dire straits, others are still popping up (around here, the new one is Cabify). I don't like Uber; they're dishonest and I'll probably stop using it as soon as new competition arrives. But I think the medium term consequences will be beneficial to both drivers and users, at the expense of middle men. [1] http://therideshareguy.com/what-are-your-rideshare-expenses/ http://therideshareguy.com/what-are-your-rideshare-expenses/