5 ms·

While I certainly wish for better conditions for these drivers (and in a grander sense, the entire gig economy), I also worry about the price sensitivity of rid

While I certainly wish for better conditions for these drivers (and in a grander sense, the entire gig economy), I also worry about the price sensitivity of riders when they go to use these apps: There are tons of users that will make their Uber vs. Lyft decision based on <$1.00 in fare difference. If these drivers get everything they want, I cannot imagine a scenario where fares do not go through the roof, which will likely lead to a decrease in demand, which will have a negative effect on take-home pay for drivers. The drivers certainly deserve better, however, I think the toothpaste is out of the tube when it comes to what consumers expect and are willing to pay.

CydeWeys 7y ago
It's probably for the best if there's fewer people driving for rideshare companies, who individually make more money. The negative externalities from all those extra cars on the road are fierce, and if those single occupancy trips were charged appropriately then more trips would be taken by alternate methods.
- Shorel 7y ago
  > The negative externalities from all those extra cars on the road are fierce It's better to have an Uber idling at some corner than a traditional taxi driving furiously while trying to find a new ride. That's what the Uber drivers do in the cities I have lived or visited. Taxi drivers are the most aggressive and dangerous drivers ever. Almost all crashes I have seen involve one or two taxis. You can't ignore that externality when discussing the only alternative to taxis we have now.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    You're still in a car-centric mindset. What I have in mind are non-car transit alternatives, like walking, biking, e-biking, e-scooters, light rail, heavy rail, etc. Even if the cars are fully electric, they're still dangerous as you point out (until the time they become fully self-driving). So it's best to eliminate as many of them as possible. And a simple tool to do so is to increase taxes on all for-hire vehicle rides, thus targeting taxis and rideshares equally.
    - Shorel 7y ago
      That sounds ideal. It also requires to rebuild some cities, something that is way too expensive.
      - CydeWeys 7y ago
        And yet plenty of cities worldwide predominantly use public transit to get around (including NYC). So it can and is done, thus it's not "too expensive". Once the transit is there, all that remains is to continue deprioritizing cars, which is quite cheap.
biesnecker 7y ago
I think that you could make the argument the opposite direction too, that the toothpaste is out of the tube when it comes to convenience. Maybe it's all about price sensitivity, but easily available taxis are such a part of American urban life now it's hard to imagine that it will totally go away if drivers are treated fairly.
- ghaff 7y ago
  Though there's both price sensitivity and competition. It's hard from the outside to say about price sensitivity (although I'm sure Uber and Lyft have run lots of experiments). Personally, I take Uber, Lyft, taxis, or a private car (or a rental car, public transit etc.) mostly based on what's most convenient to me. But this is predominantly just business travel. I'm sure many daily users have a different calculus. But there's also the fact that, if Uber doubles their prices tomorrow and Lyft doesn't, a lot of people will presumably shift to the cheaper ride especially given that most of the drivers are the same. (Of course, Lyft could follow suit. At which point, they probably get accused of price fixing.)
ghaff 7y ago
I'd like to believe that a simple fix to at least some of the ills afflicting both drivers and companies associated with "ride-share" is to simply double the prices. A few unprofitable customers drop off but the various professionals using these services to go to their jobs or when they travel grumble but keep on using the services. However, I suspect a lot of the users of these services are pretty price sensitive, both encouraging a race to the bottom for pricing among the services and leading people to drop them entirely if pricing is too high. And once they're considered more of a luxury service, the supply/demand may well drop to the point where a lot of areas with sufficient density today no longer have.
- ac29 7y ago
  As someone who uses ride-share while traveling for business, if prices doubled, I wouldn't grumble about it and continue to pay, I'd rent a car instead. That's just how the numbers work out.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    I do (rarely) take Uber or Lyft instead of renting a car these days on occasions where I'd just prefer not to deal with renting a car and the prices are roughly in the same ballpark. If the deltas were bigger in favor of rental (incl. parking, gas, etc.) I'd probably go back to renting more. That said, at least for my travel, I mostly rent when I want the flexibility of renting a car or Uber/Lyft just isn't practical, not based on which is cheapest. And I take ride-share/cabs/private car when rental is inconvenient and doesn't buy me anything. (e.g. just going from airport into a city).
6cd6beb 7y ago
>If these drivers get everything they want, I cannot imagine a scenario where fares do not go through the roof, which will likely lead to a decrease in demand, which will have a negative effect on take-home pay for drivers. With that in mind, revisit page 8 of uber's S1 document(link below), where their momentum towards profitability depends of a circle of arrows where more drivers/driver availability → lower fares/wait times → more riders → more driver opportunity/earning potential → more drivers Now just turn the arrows backwards and swap out less/more lower/higher ; if something like unionization occurs that's the path through which uber will (according to their own rubric) spiral down to 0. The only way they could prevent hemorrhaging drivers and users once that spiral started would be to burn through VC money at a faster rate. S1 document - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1543151/000119312519103850/d647752ds1.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1543151/000119312519...
- seeker61 7y ago
  What can be destroyed by paying its workers enough to live on ... should be
  - dogma1138 7y ago
    Do you think the people who made your clothes were paid enough to live on? I highly doubt so.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Uber drivers in question are faced with first world costs of living. You're moving the goal posts in support of economic slavery (comparing third world workers in the third world to first world gig workers in the first world, with first world costs of living). If you can't pay your first world employees a first world living wage, Bye Felica.
      - dogma1138 7y ago
        Do you think sweatshops in Bangladesh pay Bangladeshi living wage? If the only problem you have with this is that this exposes modern slavery in your back yard then you have a problem.
rchaud 7y ago
> I cannot imagine a scenario where fares do not go through the roof, That's what needs to happen if Uber is to actually generate a profit instead of burning through other people's money. They lose money on every ride; they're MoviePass, except they can hang on by dangling the pipe dream of "self-driving" transport in front of investors. A glittering future where they don't have to bother with pesky humans asking for due process when they're dismissed.
wool_gather 7y ago
The assumption here is that what consumers expect is reasonable, realistic, and sustainable, which ain't necessarily so. If some billionaire gave away chocolate bars for a couple of years then stopped, would we have any sympathy for people who thought that they should still get free chocolate all the time? The ride hailing companies have deliberately underpriced their product. At some point their chickens will come home to roost. If you take a price that's too low and multiply it by tremendous numbers of units sold, way more than the competition even, you [still end up with not enough money][0]. [0]:http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0135.html http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0135.html

CydeWeys 7y ago

It's probably for the best if there's fewer people driving for rideshare companies, who individually make more money. The negative externalities from all those extra cars on the road are fierce, and if those single occupancy trips were charged appropriately then more trips would be taken by alternate methods.

Shorel 7y ago
> The negative externalities from all those extra cars on the road are fierce It's better to have an Uber idling at some corner than a traditional taxi driving furiously while trying to find a new ride. That's what the Uber drivers do in the cities I have lived or visited. Taxi drivers are the most aggressive and dangerous drivers ever. Almost all crashes I have seen involve one or two taxis. You can't ignore that externality when discussing the only alternative to taxis we have now.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  You're still in a car-centric mindset. What I have in mind are non-car transit alternatives, like walking, biking, e-biking, e-scooters, light rail, heavy rail, etc. Even if the cars are fully electric, they're still dangerous as you point out (until the time they become fully self-driving). So it's best to eliminate as many of them as possible. And a simple tool to do so is to increase taxes on all for-hire vehicle rides, thus targeting taxis and rideshares equally.
  - Shorel 7y ago
    That sounds ideal. It also requires to rebuild some cities, something that is way too expensive.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      And yet plenty of cities worldwide predominantly use public transit to get around (including NYC). So it can and is done, thus it's not "too expensive". Once the transit is there, all that remains is to continue deprioritizing cars, which is quite cheap.

biesnecker 7y ago

I think that you could make the argument the opposite direction too, that the toothpaste is out of the tube when it comes to convenience. Maybe it's all about price sensitivity, but easily available taxis are such a part of American urban life now it's hard to imagine that it will totally go away if drivers are treated fairly.

ghaff 7y ago
Though there's both price sensitivity and competition. It's hard from the outside to say about price sensitivity (although I'm sure Uber and Lyft have run lots of experiments). Personally, I take Uber, Lyft, taxis, or a private car (or a rental car, public transit etc.) mostly based on what's most convenient to me. But this is predominantly just business travel. I'm sure many daily users have a different calculus. But there's also the fact that, if Uber doubles their prices tomorrow and Lyft doesn't, a lot of people will presumably shift to the cheaper ride especially given that most of the drivers are the same. (Of course, Lyft could follow suit. At which point, they probably get accused of price fixing.)

ghaff 7y ago

I'd like to believe that a simple fix to at least some of the ills afflicting both drivers and companies associated with "ride-share" is to simply double the prices. A few unprofitable customers drop off but the various professionals using these services to go to their jobs or when they travel grumble but keep on using the services. However, I suspect a lot of the users of these services are pretty price sensitive, both encouraging a race to the bottom for pricing among the services and leading people to drop them entirely if pricing is too high. And once they're considered more of a luxury service, the supply/demand may well drop to the point where a lot of areas with sufficient density today no longer have.

ac29 7y ago
As someone who uses ride-share while traveling for business, if prices doubled, I wouldn't grumble about it and continue to pay, I'd rent a car instead. That's just how the numbers work out.
- ghaff 7y ago
  I do (rarely) take Uber or Lyft instead of renting a car these days on occasions where I'd just prefer not to deal with renting a car and the prices are roughly in the same ballpark. If the deltas were bigger in favor of rental (incl. parking, gas, etc.) I'd probably go back to renting more. That said, at least for my travel, I mostly rent when I want the flexibility of renting a car or Uber/Lyft just isn't practical, not based on which is cheapest. And I take ride-share/cabs/private car when rental is inconvenient and doesn't buy me anything. (e.g. just going from airport into a city).

6cd6beb 7y ago

>If these drivers get everything they want, I cannot imagine a scenario where fares do not go through the roof, which will likely lead to a decrease in demand, which will have a negative effect on take-home pay for drivers. With that in mind, revisit page 8 of uber's S1 document(link below), where their momentum towards profitability depends of a circle of arrows where more drivers/driver availability → lower fares/wait times → more riders → more driver opportunity/earning potential → more drivers Now just turn the arrows backwards and swap out less/more lower/higher ; if something like unionization occurs that's the path through which uber will (according to their own rubric) spiral down to 0. The only way they could prevent hemorrhaging drivers and users once that spiral started would be to burn through VC money at a faster rate. S1 document - https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1543151/000119312519103850/d647752ds1.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1543151/000119312519...

seeker61 7y ago
What can be destroyed by paying its workers enough to live on ... should be
- dogma1138 7y ago
  Do you think the people who made your clothes were paid enough to live on? I highly doubt so.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Uber drivers in question are faced with first world costs of living. You're moving the goal posts in support of economic slavery (comparing third world workers in the third world to first world gig workers in the first world, with first world costs of living). If you can't pay your first world employees a first world living wage, Bye Felica.
    - dogma1138 7y ago
      Do you think sweatshops in Bangladesh pay Bangladeshi living wage? If the only problem you have with this is that this exposes modern slavery in your back yard then you have a problem.

rchaud 7y ago

> I cannot imagine a scenario where fares do not go through the roof, That's what needs to happen if Uber is to actually generate a profit instead of burning through other people's money. They lose money on every ride; they're MoviePass, except they can hang on by dangling the pipe dream of "self-driving" transport in front of investors. A glittering future where they don't have to bother with pesky humans asking for due process when they're dismissed.

wool_gather 7y ago

The assumption here is that what consumers expect is reasonable, realistic, and sustainable, which ain't necessarily so. If some billionaire gave away chocolate bars for a couple of years then stopped, would we have any sympathy for people who thought that they should still get free chocolate all the time? The ride hailing companies have deliberately underpriced their product. At some point their chickens will come home to roost. If you take a price that's too low and multiply it by tremendous numbers of units sold, way more than the competition even, you [still end up with not enough money][0]. [0]:http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0135.html http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0135.html