5 ms·

The goal is to force every other company to do it as well, protecting the long-term prospects of Uber. A smart thing, and possibly a good one in the short term.

by ekc 7y ago

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
That would basically be suicide bombing the "ride share" industry though. Everyone is losing money hand over fist. Increasing that amount will kill everyone just as dead but do it faster decreasing the amount of time that Uber, or anybody, would be able to figure out how to be profitable. I can see how faced with a binary choice between $21/hr and classifying as employees $21/hr is better but it's not a binary choice. They can pay off politicians (indirectly and with plausible deniability of course) or do other dirty things (this is Uber we're talking about here) to get the law changed.
- ghaff 7y ago
  Who says they'll bear the cost? I'm not sure forcing all of these services to jack up their prices is bad for Uber if they can increase their overall margin while doing so. They just can't do it today if the competition won't follow suit. Yes, they lose some volume but Uber/Lyft is probably a pretty strongly engrained habit for many at this point.
  - sachdevap 7y ago
    > but Uber/Lyft is probably a pretty strongly engrained habit for many at this point. Might be true in the valley, but I see no reason to believe that this is true in many other markets.
    - 0xffff2 7y ago
      Really? "the valley"? I think you'd be closer to the mark if you said it's true in most major metro areas. That still leaves many other markets, but the ubiquity Uber/Lyft is hardly a Silicon Valley only phenomenon.
      - sachdevap 7y ago
        Ubiquity of Uber/Lyft is a phenomenon across the world, but not all the markets are as flexible on the price. I question the premise that the markets will respond mildly to a significant price increase in most places. The valley just has a high density of high earners who are willing to pay the sort of price Uber would have to set for competing successfully with drivers making decent pay.
    - fgonzag 7y ago
      Uber has replaced a good chunk of taxi usage in most of the big cities around the world. Even many medium sized ones in developing countries.
      - sachdevap 7y ago
        And has done so by running its business at a loss, with waves of protests erupting across the world against their anti-labor policies. A quick google search will tell you all about it. Do you believe that when Uber stops bleeding money, and pays an ultimately somewhat acceptable wage to its drives, it will still be able to compete at the new prices set by these changes? I sure don't.
        fgonzag 7y ago
        > Might be true in the valley, but I see no reason to believe that this is true in many other markets. I responded to this statement, in which you implied that uber had little market share in other areas. No where in your comment did you state that it was operating at a loss, you simply stated you didn't believe Uber wasn't as strong in other markets.
        sachdevap 7y ago
        From the comment above, to which I was responding: > pretty strongly engrained habit An ingrained habit and market share are different things. Market share is dependent on price point among many other conditions. I never said or implied that ride share services, and Uber in particular, don't have strong market share. They do at the moment.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    The price would get so high that demand would plummet -- more shared/saver rides or public transit or own drive or flexcar/cargo carshare outside of the densest Urban cores.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      I'm not sure about "plummet" at least until you get materially more expensive than taxis. But you're right that decreases in demand mean not only fewer fares but also a less viable service at the margins. When I've looked, it's appeared as if Uber is only marginally viable around where my house is. Decrease the number of riders and I could imagine the number of drivers dropping further to the point where it's not really a usable service.
- Fricken 7y ago
  Ride share, by the strict definition, is just the point of entry. Uber's goal is to become transportation infrastructure, in a 'privatize the gains, socialize the losses' kind of way, as with the rail barons and the car companies and the commercial airlines.
  - cactus2093 7y ago
    Why do you think they’ll manage to socialize the losses? So far the losses have been very privatized (VC and bank money) and if anything the gains have been socialized (the general public has benefited a lot in the form of taxi-like transportation, airport rides, etc. getting phenomenally better in most cities where Uber exists).
    - my_username_is_ 7y ago
      There have also been public losses. Transit ridership tends to decrease with increased ridesharing. This means more cars on the roads, less money for public transit, and more pollution.
      - linuxftw 7y ago
        If there was no public transit, there would be private transit. This of course means privatizing roads and not using eminent domain to build transit. Then, transit will cost exactly what it should cost, and we can lower taxes as well.

The goal is to force every other company to do it as well, protecting the long-term prospects of Uber. A smart thing, and possibly a good one in the short term.

by ekc 7y ago

The goal is to force every other company to do it as well, protecting the long-term prospects of Uber. A smart thing, and possibly a good one in the short term.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

That would basically be suicide bombing the "ride share" industry though. Everyone is losing money hand over fist. Increasing that amount will kill everyone just as dead but do it faster decreasing the amount of time that Uber, or anybody, would be able to figure out how to be profitable. I can see how faced with a binary choice between $21/hr and classifying as employees $21/hr is better but it's not a binary choice. They can pay off politicians (indirectly and with plausible deniability of course) or do other dirty things (this is Uber we're talking about here) to get the law changed.

ghaff 7y ago
Who says they'll bear the cost? I'm not sure forcing all of these services to jack up their prices is bad for Uber if they can increase their overall margin while doing so. They just can't do it today if the competition won't follow suit. Yes, they lose some volume but Uber/Lyft is probably a pretty strongly engrained habit for many at this point.
- sachdevap 7y ago
  > but Uber/Lyft is probably a pretty strongly engrained habit for many at this point. Might be true in the valley, but I see no reason to believe that this is true in many other markets.
  - 0xffff2 7y ago
    Really? "the valley"? I think you'd be closer to the mark if you said it's true in most major metro areas. That still leaves many other markets, but the ubiquity Uber/Lyft is hardly a Silicon Valley only phenomenon.
    - sachdevap 7y ago
      Ubiquity of Uber/Lyft is a phenomenon across the world, but not all the markets are as flexible on the price. I question the premise that the markets will respond mildly to a significant price increase in most places. The valley just has a high density of high earners who are willing to pay the sort of price Uber would have to set for competing successfully with drivers making decent pay.
  - fgonzag 7y ago
    Uber has replaced a good chunk of taxi usage in most of the big cities around the world. Even many medium sized ones in developing countries.
    - sachdevap 7y ago
      And has done so by running its business at a loss, with waves of protests erupting across the world against their anti-labor policies. A quick google search will tell you all about it. Do you believe that when Uber stops bleeding money, and pays an ultimately somewhat acceptable wage to its drives, it will still be able to compete at the new prices set by these changes? I sure don't.
      - fgonzag 7y ago
        > Might be true in the valley, but I see no reason to believe that this is true in many other markets. I responded to this statement, in which you implied that uber had little market share in other areas. No where in your comment did you state that it was operating at a loss, you simply stated you didn't believe Uber wasn't as strong in other markets.
        sachdevap 7y ago
        From the comment above, to which I was responding: > pretty strongly engrained habit An ingrained habit and market share are different things. Market share is dependent on price point among many other conditions. I never said or implied that ride share services, and Uber in particular, don't have strong market share. They do at the moment.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  The price would get so high that demand would plummet -- more shared/saver rides or public transit or own drive or flexcar/cargo carshare outside of the densest Urban cores.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    I'm not sure about "plummet" at least until you get materially more expensive than taxis. But you're right that decreases in demand mean not only fewer fares but also a less viable service at the margins. When I've looked, it's appeared as if Uber is only marginally viable around where my house is. Decrease the number of riders and I could imagine the number of drivers dropping further to the point where it's not really a usable service.
Fricken 7y ago
Ride share, by the strict definition, is just the point of entry. Uber's goal is to become transportation infrastructure, in a 'privatize the gains, socialize the losses' kind of way, as with the rail barons and the car companies and the commercial airlines.
- cactus2093 7y ago
  Why do you think they’ll manage to socialize the losses? So far the losses have been very privatized (VC and bank money) and if anything the gains have been socialized (the general public has benefited a lot in the form of taxi-like transportation, airport rides, etc. getting phenomenally better in most cities where Uber exists).
  - my_username_is_ 7y ago
    There have also been public losses. Transit ridership tends to decrease with increased ridesharing. This means more cars on the roads, less money for public transit, and more pollution.
    - linuxftw 7y ago
      If there was no public transit, there would be private transit. This of course means privatizing roads and not using eminent domain to build transit. Then, transit will cost exactly what it should cost, and we can lower taxes as well.