4 ms·

Your point makes sense. But, it largely chooses to be unprofitable (outside of corona times). I’m not sure that it pays its drivers more poorly than the taxi i

by dfee 6y ago

Your point makes sense. But, it largely chooses to be unprofitable (outside of corona times). I’m not sure that it pays its drivers more poorly than the taxi industry, and I’m not sure that users overpay. Do note, though, that both of those points imply “healthy economics / markets” (dynamic pricing on both sides).

devalgo 6y ago
The profitability claim doesn't have a lot of merit for me. Uber is already priced at a level that many people don't accept, to become profitable they will likely have to charge prices that would drive massive sections of their userbase away. The assumption that somehow that they will be able to charge much more and lose no users makes no sense to me.
- wolco 6y ago
  Where would you go? You don't have a car, don't really like public transit. Taxi fairs are higher. People will pay more and some will leave the net effect would be higher profits short term.
neltnerb 6y ago
I remember taxi drivers when I was a kid rarely complaining about getting underpaid; they seemed to feel that they were entrepreneurs or entrepreneur-adjacent and generally made enough to get by. Almost as if they were real contractors with the ability to negotiate for wages. But that doesn't forgive using regulatory capture to prevent anyone else from benefiting from the same things that helped you, that's just pulling the ladder up after you. Uber did fix the problem of people who would happily make money driving a taxi being unable to because of regulatory capture. They made much worse the problem of drivers making a living wage, and when the sugar rush finally ends and they ultimately have to raise prices you know that extra margin isn't going to go to make the drivers whole and bring their wages back up to what a taxi driver used to make. It's going to go into Uber's investors' pockets. Although personally I think Uber will just go the way of WeWork once people realize they own (close to) zero vehicles, have (close to) zero employed drivers, and lose money on every ride. What happens after that? Well, public transit has been gutted already so I guess... um... scooters?

by dfee 6y ago

devalgo 6y ago

The profitability claim doesn't have a lot of merit for me. Uber is already priced at a level that many people don't accept, to become profitable they will likely have to charge prices that would drive massive sections of their userbase away. The assumption that somehow that they will be able to charge much more and lose no users makes no sense to me.

wolco 6y ago
Where would you go? You don't have a car, don't really like public transit. Taxi fairs are higher. People will pay more and some will leave the net effect would be higher profits short term.

neltnerb 6y ago

I remember taxi drivers when I was a kid rarely complaining about getting underpaid; they seemed to feel that they were entrepreneurs or entrepreneur-adjacent and generally made enough to get by. Almost as if they were real contractors with the ability to negotiate for wages. But that doesn't forgive using regulatory capture to prevent anyone else from benefiting from the same things that helped you, that's just pulling the ladder up after you. Uber did fix the problem of people who would happily make money driving a taxi being unable to because of regulatory capture. They made much worse the problem of drivers making a living wage, and when the sugar rush finally ends and they ultimately have to raise prices you know that extra margin isn't going to go to make the drivers whole and bring their wages back up to what a taxi driver used to make. It's going to go into Uber's investors' pockets. Although personally I think Uber will just go the way of WeWork once people realize they own (close to) zero vehicles, have (close to) zero employed drivers, and lose money on every ride. What happens after that? Well, public transit has been gutted already so I guess... um... scooters?