2 ms·

The flipside is this may actually be good for NYC Uber drivers. Generally I feel like they have to sweat and toil to make a living, more so than Uber drivers in

by anonu 8y ago

The flipside is this may actually be good for NYC Uber drivers. Generally I feel like they have to sweat and toil to make a living, more so than Uber drivers in other cities. This may give them some relief as supply stays constant.

madamelic 8y ago
>supply stays constant. Licenses for new drivers are stopped so the supply will dwindle, riders will get frustrated and stop heavy reliance on it.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  From the article: The City Council approved a package of bills that will halt new licenses for Uber and other ride-hail vehicles for a year while the city studies the booming industry. The legislation also allows the city to set a minimum pay rate for drivers. So not quite the leap made in your comment.
  - cryptonector 8y ago
    The supply absolutely will go down because there will be some drivers over the next year who exit the system anyways, but no new drivers because the city says so.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
      The comment claims riders will get frustrated and stop heavy reliance on it, which is much stronger version of your claim.
      - cryptonector 8y ago
        Your comment did not say that that was what you were objecting to, nor did the text you quoted address how riders will or will not get frustrated et cetera.
cryptonector 8y ago
That's the argument for limiting the number of taxi medallions low. And what of the drivers who now don't have that job?? Sure, you might [artificially] increase the income of the drivers that remain, but by lowering the income of the drivers that are ejected from the system. Yes, they can find themselves other jobs, but presumably if there are other jobs they could do for more money, then they already would be taking those and leaving driving behind. Your argument is a fallacy. You ignore the harm to those drivers who end up losing their jobs.
exegete 8y ago
What I don't understand is why these kind of "ride sharing" services don't do more to protect their drivers (I almost said "employees"). Salesmen in the same company who work on commission generally parcel out different communities (or at least clients) they are responsible for so they don't compete with each other. Fast food franchises from the same chain don't set up next to each other. When you have so many drivers from the same company competing with each other for rides it brings wages down. I guess Uber doesn't care because they get their share either way and there are enough people who are desperate enough that they'll take low wages and long hours that they get.

by anonu 8y ago

madamelic 8y ago

>supply stays constant. Licenses for new drivers are stopped so the supply will dwindle, riders will get frustrated and stop heavy reliance on it.

TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
From the article: The City Council approved a package of bills that will halt new licenses for Uber and other ride-hail vehicles for a year while the city studies the booming industry. The legislation also allows the city to set a minimum pay rate for drivers. So not quite the leap made in your comment.
- cryptonector 8y ago
  The supply absolutely will go down because there will be some drivers over the next year who exit the system anyways, but no new drivers because the city says so.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    The comment claims riders will get frustrated and stop heavy reliance on it, which is much stronger version of your claim.
    - cryptonector 8y ago
      Your comment did not say that that was what you were objecting to, nor did the text you quoted address how riders will or will not get frustrated et cetera.

cryptonector 8y ago

That's the argument for limiting the number of taxi medallions low. And what of the drivers who now don't have that job?? Sure, you might [artificially] increase the income of the drivers that remain, but by lowering the income of the drivers that are ejected from the system. Yes, they can find themselves other jobs, but presumably if there are other jobs they could do for more money, then they already would be taking those and leaving driving behind. Your argument is a fallacy. You ignore the harm to those drivers who end up losing their jobs.

exegete 8y ago

What I don't understand is why these kind of "ride sharing" services don't do more to protect their drivers (I almost said "employees"). Salesmen in the same company who work on commission generally parcel out different communities (or at least clients) they are responsible for so they don't compete with each other. Fast food franchises from the same chain don't set up next to each other. When you have so many drivers from the same company competing with each other for rides it brings wages down. I guess Uber doesn't care because they get their share either way and there are enough people who are desperate enough that they'll take low wages and long hours that they get.