7 ms·

I really hope Lyft doesn't do anything to screw up, as I've uninstalled Uber and will probably never use the service again. However, I don't see myself going ba

by taude 10y ago

I really hope Lyft doesn't do anything to screw up, as I've uninstalled Uber and will probably never use the service again. However, I don't see myself going back to regular taxi system as that's even more corrupt and despicable. I just hope Lyft plays the game with a social conscious and makes positive decisions and continues to treat drivers well (most Lyft drivers I talk to say they like driving for Lyft way better than Uber). I'm not so sure that as a society we should be rewarding people with drive like this "Mr. Kalanick, 40, is driven to the point that he must win at whatever he puts his mind to and at whatever cost".

zitterbewegung 10y ago
I don't think you can support a ridesharing company that by design treats employees as contractors and also be socially conscious . If you really want to do this use public transportation .
- ars 10y ago
  > I don't think you can support a ridesharing company that by design treats employees as contractors and also be socially conscious . I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Can you explain? Seems to me the opposite is the case - as a contractor the driver has full control, but as an employee how hard he works has little to do with how much he gets paid.
  - pseudalopex 10y ago
    About the only thing the drivers control is when they work. They can't negotiate their rates. A 4.5/5 average rating gets them fired. Uber penalizes them for declining less profitable jobs. So the argument is that the drivers are actually employees, and classifying them as contractors is a way to dodge taxes and externalize risk.
- taude 10y ago
  Yes, "socially conscious" isn't really the ride adjective I was looking for...something more like integrity, or even positive ethics, but that's not the work either.
- smoyer 10y ago
  Uber isn't really ride-sharing anymore.
- bmelton 10y ago
  > I don't think you can support a ridesharing company that by design treats employees as contractors and also be socially conscious I don't understand why not. I have a total of five friends who have each chosen to drive for various ridesharing companies, and in the conversations I've had with them, it seems pretty clear that none of them would be drivers if they couldn't set their own schedules, or if they were otherwise treated as actual employees. To be fair, only one of them is driving as their main source of income; the other four are driving to supplement their day jobs for side money. The flexible schedule is crucial to that. The fifth prefers flexible scheduling as well. Though he might otherwise be considered a 'full time' employee, he working a schedule around a non-standard custodial agreement with his ex-wife, which means he might drive for 14-15 hours in one day, and none in another.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Flexible schedules has almost nothing to do with employees vs contractors.
    - sillysaurus3 10y ago
      It seems related.
    - zimablue 10y ago
      In the UK at least, flexible time and place of work (as well as use of company equipment to do your work) are considerations when considering whether you can be classed as self employed. Re the base comment, it's almost not worth replying to as any: "you can't do X and consider yourself Y" comments are in themselves silly, because answering in the general case - I have a different definition of Y to you - you can think of our internal definitions as an ordering of <things related to Y> by <how efficient it is for me to do thing in advancing the cause of Y>. For example, I care a lot about humanity being happier and more equal but I think that in the long term this is something which will have to be provided by the state and not employers, so I'm ambivalent towards laws trying to push employers into a paternal role.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- jeffdavis 10y ago
  The only thing fundamental about Lyft is that you use an app to request a ride and Lyft helps route that to a nearby driver. That sounds like a completely reasonable business that serves a useful need. Whether the drivers are employees, contractors, or volunteers is an implementation detail. If laws, public opinion, or economics change, the fundamental business still seems reasonable and useful.
- morgante 10y ago
  > I don't think you can support a ridesharing company that by design treats employees as contractors and also be socially conscious You state that like it's a proven fact, when it's anything but. I personally think it's farcical to treat Uber drivers as employees. They have no set schedule, location, or expectations. They're constantly making ad-hoc decisions on which rides to accept. The closest analogue is traditional taxi drivers, who also aren't employees.
- mahyarm 10y ago
  You don't think medallion taxi drivers are not contractors also? Ask you next taxi driver how much he is paying to rent his taxi and how it all works. Maybe he'll be an employee, but more likely he will be paying a flat fee of $3000/month to the medallion owner and doesn't make money for himself until he's paid off that debt. And that is in my small hometown of 300k people.
- valuearb 10y ago
  I'm a contractor, am I somehow less socially desirable to you?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ForHackernews 10y ago
> I'm not so sure that as a society we should be rewarding people with drive like this "Mr. Kalanick, 40, is driven to the point that he must win at whatever he puts his mind to and at whatever cost". I hope he loses big. Losing everything because of a sociopathic drive to win? That's the stuff of classical tragedy.
- pavlov 10y ago
  The American obsession with winning has definitely jumped the shark with Kalanick and Trump. At least I'm getting tired of all this "winning".
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    Note that it isnt about doing well or making money. "Winning" requires competition, an enemy to destroy. Uber's approach is similar to napster's: damage the entrenched busines model (taxis) at all costs. These people will let thier companies burn so long as the enemy burns a tiny bit more. On the other side are lots of destoyed lives (drivers and investors) but the men on top are still "winning" thier silly game.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rhino369 10y ago
>regular taxi system as that's even more corrupt and despicable. The idea that the taxis are corrupt and despicable is 100% Uber/Lyft propaganda. The idea that a bunch of immigrants driving 12 hours a day to support a meager income for their families are a cabal of special interests is ridiculous. Uber and Lyft are better than taxis because of the on demand nature and they are cheaper because of better utilization. But there is no need to make taxi drivers out to be evil.
- cmahler7 10y ago
  they're cheaper because they can subsidize their fares via VC money
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ogezi 10y ago
    > they're cheaper because they can subsidize their fares via VC money That's not the (only) reason why they're cheaper. They're cheaper because they offer drivers less downtime, therefore the drivers can end up earning more money since they're driving more of the time and earning fares. They're also cheaper because services like uber pool and lyft line allow riders to spilt the fare among themselves. I also think that Uber and Lyft will be cheaper than taxis for many more years to come. They're just more efficient as business models than taxis'.
    - memmcgee 10y ago
      Except they're still losing billions of dollars every year.
  - specialist 10y ago
    The drivers also subsidize the cheap(er) fares.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nilkn 10y ago
Lyft desperately needs to expand the list of cities they serve. I'm in Houston, the fourth largest city in the US, and for several years Uber has operated here but Lyft still doesn't.
- ktta 10y ago
  In a way large cities are harder to get into so the qualifier of it being large is actually detrimental. My opinion is that smaller cities are easier to tackle, so in case anything goes wrong, they can be corrected easily, and after a couple mistakes and lessons, they'll be ready for the big boys.

by taude 10y ago

zitterbewegung 10y ago

I don't think you can support a ridesharing company that by design treats employees as contractors and also be socially conscious . If you really want to do this use public transportation .

ars 10y ago
> I don't think you can support a ridesharing company that by design treats employees as contractors and also be socially conscious . I fail to see what one has to do with the other. Can you explain? Seems to me the opposite is the case - as a contractor the driver has full control, but as an employee how hard he works has little to do with how much he gets paid.
- pseudalopex 10y ago
  About the only thing the drivers control is when they work. They can't negotiate their rates. A 4.5/5 average rating gets them fired. Uber penalizes them for declining less profitable jobs. So the argument is that the drivers are actually employees, and classifying them as contractors is a way to dodge taxes and externalize risk.
taude 10y ago
Yes, "socially conscious" isn't really the ride adjective I was looking for...something more like integrity, or even positive ethics, but that's not the work either.
smoyer 10y ago
Uber isn't really ride-sharing anymore.
bmelton 10y ago
> I don't think you can support a ridesharing company that by design treats employees as contractors and also be socially conscious I don't understand why not. I have a total of five friends who have each chosen to drive for various ridesharing companies, and in the conversations I've had with them, it seems pretty clear that none of them would be drivers if they couldn't set their own schedules, or if they were otherwise treated as actual employees. To be fair, only one of them is driving as their main source of income; the other four are driving to supplement their day jobs for side money. The flexible schedule is crucial to that. The fifth prefers flexible scheduling as well. Though he might otherwise be considered a 'full time' employee, he working a schedule around a non-standard custodial agreement with his ex-wife, which means he might drive for 14-15 hours in one day, and none in another.
- Retric 10y ago
  Flexible schedules has almost nothing to do with employees vs contractors.
  - sillysaurus3 10y ago
    It seems related.
  - zimablue 10y ago
    In the UK at least, flexible time and place of work (as well as use of company equipment to do your work) are considerations when considering whether you can be classed as self employed. Re the base comment, it's almost not worth replying to as any: "you can't do X and consider yourself Y" comments are in themselves silly, because answering in the general case - I have a different definition of Y to you - you can think of our internal definitions as an ordering of <things related to Y> by <how efficient it is for me to do thing in advancing the cause of Y>. For example, I care a lot about humanity being happier and more equal but I think that in the long term this is something which will have to be provided by the state and not employers, so I'm ambivalent towards laws trying to push employers into a paternal role.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
jeffdavis 10y ago
The only thing fundamental about Lyft is that you use an app to request a ride and Lyft helps route that to a nearby driver. That sounds like a completely reasonable business that serves a useful need. Whether the drivers are employees, contractors, or volunteers is an implementation detail. If laws, public opinion, or economics change, the fundamental business still seems reasonable and useful.
morgante 10y ago
> I don't think you can support a ridesharing company that by design treats employees as contractors and also be socially conscious You state that like it's a proven fact, when it's anything but. I personally think it's farcical to treat Uber drivers as employees. They have no set schedule, location, or expectations. They're constantly making ad-hoc decisions on which rides to accept. The closest analogue is traditional taxi drivers, who also aren't employees.
mahyarm 10y ago
You don't think medallion taxi drivers are not contractors also? Ask you next taxi driver how much he is paying to rent his taxi and how it all works. Maybe he'll be an employee, but more likely he will be paying a flat fee of $3000/month to the medallion owner and doesn't make money for himself until he's paid off that debt. And that is in my small hometown of 300k people.
valuearb 10y ago
I'm a contractor, am I somehow less socially desirable to you?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ForHackernews 10y ago

> I'm not so sure that as a society we should be rewarding people with drive like this "Mr. Kalanick, 40, is driven to the point that he must win at whatever he puts his mind to and at whatever cost". I hope he loses big. Losing everything because of a sociopathic drive to win? That's the stuff of classical tragedy.

pavlov 10y ago
The American obsession with winning has definitely jumped the shark with Kalanick and Trump. At least I'm getting tired of all this "winning".
- sandworm101 10y ago
  Note that it isnt about doing well or making money. "Winning" requires competition, an enemy to destroy. Uber's approach is similar to napster's: damage the entrenched busines model (taxis) at all costs. These people will let thier companies burn so long as the enemy burns a tiny bit more. On the other side are lots of destoyed lives (drivers and investors) but the men on top are still "winning" thier silly game.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rhino369 10y ago

>regular taxi system as that's even more corrupt and despicable. The idea that the taxis are corrupt and despicable is 100% Uber/Lyft propaganda. The idea that a bunch of immigrants driving 12 hours a day to support a meager income for their families are a cabal of special interests is ridiculous. Uber and Lyft are better than taxis because of the on demand nature and they are cheaper because of better utilization. But there is no need to make taxi drivers out to be evil.

cmahler7 10y ago
they're cheaper because they can subsidize their fares via VC money
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ogezi 10y ago
  > they're cheaper because they can subsidize their fares via VC money That's not the (only) reason why they're cheaper. They're cheaper because they offer drivers less downtime, therefore the drivers can end up earning more money since they're driving more of the time and earning fares. They're also cheaper because services like uber pool and lyft line allow riders to spilt the fare among themselves. I also think that Uber and Lyft will be cheaper than taxis for many more years to come. They're just more efficient as business models than taxis'.
  - memmcgee 10y ago
    Except they're still losing billions of dollars every year.
- specialist 10y ago
  The drivers also subsidize the cheap(er) fares.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nilkn 10y ago

Lyft desperately needs to expand the list of cities they serve. I'm in Houston, the fourth largest city in the US, and for several years Uber has operated here but Lyft still doesn't.

ktta 10y ago
In a way large cities are harder to get into so the qualifier of it being large is actually detrimental. My opinion is that smaller cities are easier to tackle, so in case anything goes wrong, they can be corrected easily, and after a couple mistakes and lessons, they'll be ready for the big boys.