7 ms·

> The only way to get consistently higher wages is to maintain the higher fares and correspondingly the lower demand for drivers. The drivers in NYC are striki

by shkkmo 8y ago

> The only way to get consistently higher wages is to maintain the higher fares and correspondingly the lower demand for drivers. The drivers in NYC are striking for greater job security, not higher wages. The drivers not in NYC are striking for the guaranteed minimum wage that the drivers in NYC are guaranteed by law.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> The drivers in NYC are striking for greater job security, not higher wages. And what happens when the company only has enough customers to provide that to 400 drivers when there are 500 drivers on strike? > The drivers not in NYC are striking for the guaranteed minimum wage that the drivers in NYC are guaranteed by law. Which they can already have by just not accepting fares lower than that.
- ameister14 8y ago
  >And what happens when the company only has enough customers to provide that to 400 drivers when there are 500 drivers on strike? They downsize or pass the cost to the consumer, just like always. Doesn't mean it's a bad thing to do.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    But that's the whole point -- it means they need some people to stop working. If the workers are willing to make that trade off then they don't need the company's assent, they can just have the appropriate number of people quit. The lower supply guarantees more work for the remainder. The problem is everybody thinks they're going to be the one who gets "more work" and not the one who gets the axe.
    - ameister14 8y ago
      Yes, individuals aren't good at this. It's one of the reasons why collective bargaining works better than individual. That said, no, the company will not increase wages and add job security to the same extent with an external artificial decrease in driver supply. They'll do it in order to attract more workers and approach an equilibrium where wages and drivers meet, but if you artificially manipulate it without spelling these out it doesn't actually reach the same level.
  - bhupy 8y ago
    Why is passing on the cost of transportation to the consumer considered the optimum solution? Why not instead advocate for expanding the EITC so that the government fills in the gaps caused by lower wages? At the end of the day, we as a society (rightly) demand a minimum standard of living for everyone, and we collectively pay for that one way or the other. Either we pay taxes to fund a welfare state, or we pay inflated prices for goods and services to maintain wage floors. I'd argue that paying taxes for welfare is more progressive, as the burden falls on richer people. Paying inflated prices for goods and services is regressive as it's a burden that falls equally on the rich and the poor. What we're clearly seeing is a well functioning market driving down the cost of driver labor to the minimum possible price. This is good for consumers, since the good/service is now accessible to people lower on the socioeconomic ladder. If the problem is that some of these drivers aren't making enough to survive, then wouldn't a more optimum solution be to simply give them a little bit of money?
    - arrrg 8y ago
      So society is supposed to subsidize Uber‘s continued existence? That‘s perverted and unacceptable.
      - bhupy 8y ago
        > So society is supposed to subsidize Uber‘s continued existence? That‘s perverted and unacceptable. Of course! Why should the government provide health insurance? Doing so allows employers to shirk their responsibility to provide health insurance to their workers. I think we'd both agree that government-run health insurance obviating the need for businesses to provide their employees health insurance is neither perverted nor unacceptable. Why not then apply the same thinking to the concept of wages in general? At the end of the day, we agree as a society that there's a minimum standard of living that everyone ought to enjoy, and welfare is our way of ensuring that. That there are some professions (like rideshare drivers) in which the pay is too low to maintain a minimum standard of living sounds like a welfare problem. And remember, society would be subsidizing Uber/Lyft via wage floors anyway, they will continue to exist (albeit only available to richer consumers), but the rich and the poor pay equally to maintain a minimum standard of living for drivers, making it function like a regressive tax. Also keep in mind that Uber's margins are razor-thin as things currently stand, since there is effective competition in Lyft et al.
- masonic 8y ago
  Which they can already have by just not accepting fares lower than that. Drivers don't set fares; the regulator does.

by shkkmo 8y ago

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> The drivers in NYC are striking for greater job security, not higher wages. And what happens when the company only has enough customers to provide that to 400 drivers when there are 500 drivers on strike? > The drivers not in NYC are striking for the guaranteed minimum wage that the drivers in NYC are guaranteed by law. Which they can already have by just not accepting fares lower than that.

ameister14 8y ago
>And what happens when the company only has enough customers to provide that to 400 drivers when there are 500 drivers on strike? They downsize or pass the cost to the consumer, just like always. Doesn't mean it's a bad thing to do.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  But that's the whole point -- it means they need some people to stop working. If the workers are willing to make that trade off then they don't need the company's assent, they can just have the appropriate number of people quit. The lower supply guarantees more work for the remainder. The problem is everybody thinks they're going to be the one who gets "more work" and not the one who gets the axe.
  - ameister14 8y ago
    Yes, individuals aren't good at this. It's one of the reasons why collective bargaining works better than individual. That said, no, the company will not increase wages and add job security to the same extent with an external artificial decrease in driver supply. They'll do it in order to attract more workers and approach an equilibrium where wages and drivers meet, but if you artificially manipulate it without spelling these out it doesn't actually reach the same level.
- bhupy 8y ago
  Why is passing on the cost of transportation to the consumer considered the optimum solution? Why not instead advocate for expanding the EITC so that the government fills in the gaps caused by lower wages? At the end of the day, we as a society (rightly) demand a minimum standard of living for everyone, and we collectively pay for that one way or the other. Either we pay taxes to fund a welfare state, or we pay inflated prices for goods and services to maintain wage floors. I'd argue that paying taxes for welfare is more progressive, as the burden falls on richer people. Paying inflated prices for goods and services is regressive as it's a burden that falls equally on the rich and the poor. What we're clearly seeing is a well functioning market driving down the cost of driver labor to the minimum possible price. This is good for consumers, since the good/service is now accessible to people lower on the socioeconomic ladder. If the problem is that some of these drivers aren't making enough to survive, then wouldn't a more optimum solution be to simply give them a little bit of money?
  - arrrg 8y ago
    So society is supposed to subsidize Uber‘s continued existence? That‘s perverted and unacceptable.
    - bhupy 8y ago
      > So society is supposed to subsidize Uber‘s continued existence? That‘s perverted and unacceptable. Of course! Why should the government provide health insurance? Doing so allows employers to shirk their responsibility to provide health insurance to their workers. I think we'd both agree that government-run health insurance obviating the need for businesses to provide their employees health insurance is neither perverted nor unacceptable. Why not then apply the same thinking to the concept of wages in general? At the end of the day, we agree as a society that there's a minimum standard of living that everyone ought to enjoy, and welfare is our way of ensuring that. That there are some professions (like rideshare drivers) in which the pay is too low to maintain a minimum standard of living sounds like a welfare problem. And remember, society would be subsidizing Uber/Lyft via wage floors anyway, they will continue to exist (albeit only available to richer consumers), but the rich and the poor pay equally to maintain a minimum standard of living for drivers, making it function like a regressive tax. Also keep in mind that Uber's margins are razor-thin as things currently stand, since there is effective competition in Lyft et al.
masonic 8y ago
Which they can already have by just not accepting fares lower than that. Drivers don't set fares; the regulator does.