>I'd happily pay 2x my current rate and the claim that I would _have_ to pay 5x to cover their costs is laughable. That's the thing, though; I think demand is

>I'd happily pay 2x my current rate and the claim that I would _have_ to pay 5x to cover their costs is laughable. That's the thing, though; I think demand is super elastic. I used Uber almost every day when they ran their 50% off specials. It was glorious; whole weeks where I didn't drive at all. Now? sure, sometimes when I'm tired, I'll take an uber home (and back to work the next day) but most of the time, I drive myself, unless I'm drinking or going somewhere with challenging parking. At 2x current rates, I'd probably very rarely use the service to commute, though I'd still use it when there's even a chance of me getting a drink. even at 5x, I'd choose uber or lyft over a cab from five years ago, but I wouldn't use it much more than a cab from five years ago. but... this is all predicated on the current "no planning required" density of cars. right now, where I live, uber or lyft will be here within five minutes of my request, most of the time. If people took uber or lyft less often because it was more expensive, we'd have fewer cars in service, and my wait times would increase. That was the reason I didn't use cabs very often before the advent of uber; I didn't want to plan my rides in advance. The ride sharing services have a certain SLA they have to meet; if in service uber or lyft drivers fall below a certain density, demand will fall off a cliff. so that's the question; if they have to double their rates, will that drop demand (and thus supply of drivers) below that critical mass that allows them to be "transportation without planning"?