5 ms·

How does Uber even lose that much money while paying their drivers on average $3.5 per hour and offering no benefits or safety nets? I wonder if a downturn wil

How does Uber even lose that much money while paying their drivers on average $3.5 per hour and offering no benefits or safety nets? I wonder if a downturn will be what it takes for Uber to finally die.

dantheman 8y ago
Uber pays more than $3.5 an hour. Where are you getting that number? Uber and other ride sharing services are so much better than taxis, why would you want them to die? Uber's international support is amazing and has made international travel far more safe and convenient.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nickserv 8y ago
  Please don't call it "ride sharing", which is when 2 or more people going to the same place share the cost of transportation. There is no profit motive involved. What Uber and others do is an unlicensed/subcontracted taxi service.
  - point78 8y ago
    Half of these "sharing" economy services have nothing to do with sharing...
  - cam3ham 8y ago
    what? it's sharing a car as opposed to everyone buying and owning their own. #facepalm
  - austhrow743 8y ago
    That they're not ride sharing services does not make them unlicensed taxi's. Private car hire where you book someone to drive from x to y location at z time has been a thing for a lot longer than these apps. That's what Uber and others do. Taxi's can pick up people who hail them at the curb. That's their differentiator from private cars and uber. That's what they have paid licencing fees and bought medallions (depending on area) to be able to do.
ben174 8y ago
Honestly, where did you come up with that number? I know many drivers and they’re certainly making far more than three fiddy an hour.
- RodericDay 8y ago
  after expenses?
- icebraining 8y ago
  It comes from the MIT paper "The Economics of Ride-Hailing", but the authors have since revised the numbers (still, only to $8.5-$10): https://twitter.com/StephenZoepf/status/970754550968676352 https://twitter.com/StephenZoepf/status/970754550968676352
  - djajshgsjja 8y ago
    Uh, it’s a pretty huge difference. Millions of people live in that kind of wage in the US. It’s the difference between drivers being completely irrational or maybe the gig being worth their while.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      It’s still not a living wage.
    - GW150914 8y ago
      Millions of people live in abject poverty too, so what? It’s on par with an entry level fast food job, but a lot more risky given the inherent dangers of spending a lot of time on the road, and with no possibility of advancement. Given that entry level burger flipping is considered the bottom of the barrel, I wouldn’t be too impressed. I think it’s worth fighting for jobs that have a future, the possibility of a living wage, benefits like healthcare, and at least the possibility of advancement don’t you?
      - djajshgsjja 8y ago
zitterbewegung 8y ago
Maybe their insurance policy that covers all the drivers when they are on the clock with passengers.
jchw 8y ago
The subtitle of this article is "The company’s self-driving unit continues to be a drain on cash." Guessing that might contribute to it.
- eanzenberg 8y ago
  Hope they can last the couple of decades it will need for self-driving cars to be viable.
- mrep 8y ago
  True, but the self-driving unit was only 200 million out of the total 891 million. Also, in my opinion, they pretty much have to go all-in investing in self driving cars because any market waymo launches in can easily outprice uber/lyft especially considering that while uber has a lot of cash, google literally has an order of magnitude more on hand + they still rake in gobs full of profits from search. And for the eventual "waymo cannot handle rain or snow and probably won't be able to handle it for years" argument: almost all of the taxi driving market is under normal conditions. It will almost certainly be profitable to just service customers when weather conditions are fine and then park their cars in bad weather.
  - greenyoda 8y ago
    > And for the eventual "waymo cannot handle rain or snow and probably won't be able to handle it for years" argument: almost all of the taxi driving market is under normal conditions. Rain and snow are normal conditions in most of the U.S. Here in NYC (one of Uber's largest markets) it's been raining a lot lately. I don't think a taxi service that doesn't operate in the rain would get much business here. The demand for taxis actually goes up here when it rains. Also, it can start raining quite suddenly. What do you do if someone is on their way to somewhere in a self-driving car and it starts to rain? > It will almost certainly be profitable to just service customers when weather conditions are fine and then park their cars in bad weather. You'd need somewhere with enough space to park your entire fleet when it's raining or snowing. That would be rather expensive.
    - 8y ago
WilliamEdward 8y ago
My unpopular opinion is that Uber is one of the better things to happen to the economy. So many regulations and corporate/government giants stomping out growing businesses basically means that you can align everything perfectly in your startup and still fail. Uber found a loophole and now I get to travel to work without buying a $60k vehicle. Your wish for Uber to die is elitist and comes from a place of misunderstanding why Uber is a good thing to many, many people, startups and workers alike. Just because you dread the idea of being driven by a taxi driver without a permit doesn't mean I have to as well.
- tango24 8y ago
  > now I get to travel to work without buying a $60k vehicle. Why on earth do you need a $60k vehicle? That’s exorbitant if you’re just trying to “get to work”. 60k is a luxury joy ride, not a commuter beater.
  - WilliamEdward 8y ago
    Sorry, i don't live in the US. Just did a rough conversion to make it easier to read. Either way I do not have 5-30 thousand to spend. I also live in a place with really bad public transport.
overcast 8y ago
By subsidizing cheap cab fares? There is a reason Uber gained popularity, because the fees are cheap comparatively.

dantheman 8y ago

Uber pays more than $3.5 an hour. Where are you getting that number? Uber and other ride sharing services are so much better than taxis, why would you want them to die? Uber's international support is amazing and has made international travel far more safe and convenient.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nickserv 8y ago
Please don't call it "ride sharing", which is when 2 or more people going to the same place share the cost of transportation. There is no profit motive involved. What Uber and others do is an unlicensed/subcontracted taxi service.
- point78 8y ago
  Half of these "sharing" economy services have nothing to do with sharing...
- cam3ham 8y ago
  what? it's sharing a car as opposed to everyone buying and owning their own. #facepalm
- austhrow743 8y ago
  That they're not ride sharing services does not make them unlicensed taxi's. Private car hire where you book someone to drive from x to y location at z time has been a thing for a lot longer than these apps. That's what Uber and others do. Taxi's can pick up people who hail them at the curb. That's their differentiator from private cars and uber. That's what they have paid licencing fees and bought medallions (depending on area) to be able to do.

ben174 8y ago

Honestly, where did you come up with that number? I know many drivers and they’re certainly making far more than three fiddy an hour.

RodericDay 8y ago
after expenses?
icebraining 8y ago
It comes from the MIT paper "The Economics of Ride-Hailing", but the authors have since revised the numbers (still, only to $8.5-$10): https://twitter.com/StephenZoepf/status/970754550968676352 https://twitter.com/StephenZoepf/status/970754550968676352
- djajshgsjja 8y ago
  Uh, it’s a pretty huge difference. Millions of people live in that kind of wage in the US. It’s the difference between drivers being completely irrational or maybe the gig being worth their while.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    It’s still not a living wage.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    Millions of people live in abject poverty too, so what? It’s on par with an entry level fast food job, but a lot more risky given the inherent dangers of spending a lot of time on the road, and with no possibility of advancement. Given that entry level burger flipping is considered the bottom of the barrel, I wouldn’t be too impressed. I think it’s worth fighting for jobs that have a future, the possibility of a living wage, benefits like healthcare, and at least the possibility of advancement don’t you?
    - djajshgsjja 8y ago

zitterbewegung 8y ago

Maybe their insurance policy that covers all the drivers when they are on the clock with passengers.

jchw 8y ago

The subtitle of this article is "The company’s self-driving unit continues to be a drain on cash." Guessing that might contribute to it.

eanzenberg 8y ago
Hope they can last the couple of decades it will need for self-driving cars to be viable.
mrep 8y ago
True, but the self-driving unit was only 200 million out of the total 891 million. Also, in my opinion, they pretty much have to go all-in investing in self driving cars because any market waymo launches in can easily outprice uber/lyft especially considering that while uber has a lot of cash, google literally has an order of magnitude more on hand + they still rake in gobs full of profits from search. And for the eventual "waymo cannot handle rain or snow and probably won't be able to handle it for years" argument: almost all of the taxi driving market is under normal conditions. It will almost certainly be profitable to just service customers when weather conditions are fine and then park their cars in bad weather.
- greenyoda 8y ago
  > And for the eventual "waymo cannot handle rain or snow and probably won't be able to handle it for years" argument: almost all of the taxi driving market is under normal conditions. Rain and snow are normal conditions in most of the U.S. Here in NYC (one of Uber's largest markets) it's been raining a lot lately. I don't think a taxi service that doesn't operate in the rain would get much business here. The demand for taxis actually goes up here when it rains. Also, it can start raining quite suddenly. What do you do if someone is on their way to somewhere in a self-driving car and it starts to rain? > It will almost certainly be profitable to just service customers when weather conditions are fine and then park their cars in bad weather. You'd need somewhere with enough space to park your entire fleet when it's raining or snowing. That would be rather expensive.
  - 8y ago

WilliamEdward 8y ago

My unpopular opinion is that Uber is one of the better things to happen to the economy. So many regulations and corporate/government giants stomping out growing businesses basically means that you can align everything perfectly in your startup and still fail. Uber found a loophole and now I get to travel to work without buying a $60k vehicle. Your wish for Uber to die is elitist and comes from a place of misunderstanding why Uber is a good thing to many, many people, startups and workers alike. Just because you dread the idea of being driven by a taxi driver without a permit doesn't mean I have to as well.

tango24 8y ago
> now I get to travel to work without buying a $60k vehicle. Why on earth do you need a $60k vehicle? That’s exorbitant if you’re just trying to “get to work”. 60k is a luxury joy ride, not a commuter beater.
- WilliamEdward 8y ago
  Sorry, i don't live in the US. Just did a rough conversion to make it easier to read. Either way I do not have 5-30 thousand to spend. I also live in a place with really bad public transport.

overcast 8y ago

By subsidizing cheap cab fares? There is a reason Uber gained popularity, because the fees are cheap comparatively.