4 ms·

This seems more nuanced than implied here. It sounds as though the 'main issue' wasn't that Super Shuttle couldn't work while letting their drivers be independe

by swc 6y ago

This seems more nuanced than implied here. It sounds as though the 'main issue' wasn't that Super Shuttle couldn't work while letting their drivers be independent, but rather that they couldn't compete on price with a service that didn't. If a business was paying their workers minimum wage and couldn't compete on price with another business that came in and didn't respect minimum wage laws, you wouldn't say the main issue was paying minimum wage. You would say it was the business that didn't respect minimum wage laws. It seems like if all companies treat drivers as independent contractors, then the market will naturally work itself out. Drivers will compete amongst themselves and determine what they are willing to work for, and prices will adapt as needed to support that. However, if some companies don't, then obviously it isn't a level playing field. That will only be exacerbated if the company that doesn't then also further depresses ride prices to the point of operating at a loss. Whether the current legislation actually achieves the goal remains to be seen, but the whole point is to level the playing field. I don't think anyone actually thinks that the way forward is to treat drivers as employees. Instead, I think having to treat drivers as employees is a deterrent to the current way contractor laws are being skirted, with the intent of pushing all companies to treat their drivers as independent contractors in order to level the playing field.

kyle_martin1 6y ago
No. It isn’t more nuanced than that. SuperShuttle couldn’t make changes because the drivers irrationally refused to work more for the same pay, even though they knew the company was failing. It really is that simple.
- nogabebop23 6y ago
  >> because the drivers irrationally refused to work more for the same pay How is this irrational? You offer me $X for Y hours of work. If X/Y gets too small I say "no" and do something with higher utility, even if that's playing flappy bird. I don't really care that my actions destroy the source of this opportunity because I've already rejected it. You are right that this is simple, just not in the way you're interpreting it.
  - kyle_martin1 6y ago
    Because if you don't take trips then you don't make any money. They felt entitled and refused to adapt when the market demanded it. That's irrational.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
      In discussions like these I like to start from a basic premise: people aren't stupid. It's obvious to the drivers that if they don't take trips, then they don't make money. Clearly then, they've decided that below a certain dollar amount, it make more sense to them to play computer games than take a fare. How they arrived at that conclusion, I don't know. But I have faith that it made sense to them. I do very small software projects for people I find online. I have a minimum fee. If I take on projects below that minimum, I'd have more work, but I have determined that it's in my best interest to hold out for that minimum rate. If this means that I don't make money on that side gig a particular day or week, so be it. I have my reasons for doing that and they won't necessarily make sense to anyone looking in from the outside.
      - BoorishBears 6y ago
        It's trivial to find out why looking at driver's posts online: There's a minimum time cost to them for each ride or delivery. There's the time you spend finding out exactly where the person is, there can be a delay between jobs, there's delays when picking up an order. Someone who drives 10 miles for one job will spend much less time than someone who drives 1 mile for 10 jobs. And since they have X units of time to spend in the app, they'll start making less and less per mile driven. They also don't get paid for the time spent going to a pickup unless it exceeds a certain length: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/24/16533940/uber-long-pickups-late-cancellations-driver-earnings https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/24/16533940/uber-long-picku... It's easy enough to see how, at some point, they start to get paid so little that it's in their best interest to just not drive and spend the gas and their effort __ Here's a severe case showing someone go through that exact experience: > I accepted the pick-up and app informed me that the customer was 13 miles away I drove there[...] pressed my App for the drop-off Destination [...] and saw that drop-off was 1 mile away > Total time of trip, back and forth, 45 to 50 minutes and 29 miles , and I earned $8 dollars > So, after thinking about it, I have decided to ‘decline’ all trips that are more than 10 miles away from me and do not say that it is gonna be a ‘long trip’ https://ride.guru/lounge/p/uber-drivers-how-far-will-you-drive-to-pick-up-a-fare-not-knowing-their-destination https://ride.guru/lounge/p/uber-drivers-how-far-will-you-dri...
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  The drivers were not investors in the company; it failing was not a huge problem for them. Having a strong preference for leisure is totally ok. The drivers didn’t have enough stock and weren’t paid enough to motivate them to work the hours the company needed to be viable. The company failed. The investors lost all their money. The founders and employees got nothing. That’s capitalism. If they’d been right they’d have made massive bank and that too would have been capitalism. Workers get to play capitalism too. Everyone played. Everyone made their choices and the company failed.
  - kyle_martin1 6y ago
    The drivers are franchisees so they have huge interest in keeping the company going, otherwise they wouldn't get any trips. It was their problem. They just didn't want to change.
    - ric2b 6y ago
      They can just drive for another company, they don't suffer any significant loss the same way a McDonald's restaurant would if McD's folded and had to overhaul the entire restaurant. The drivers just install another app on their phone.

by swc 6y ago

kyle_martin1 6y ago

No. It isn’t more nuanced than that. SuperShuttle couldn’t make changes because the drivers irrationally refused to work more for the same pay, even though they knew the company was failing. It really is that simple.

nogabebop23 6y ago
>> because the drivers irrationally refused to work more for the same pay How is this irrational? You offer me $X for Y hours of work. If X/Y gets too small I say "no" and do something with higher utility, even if that's playing flappy bird. I don't really care that my actions destroy the source of this opportunity because I've already rejected it. You are right that this is simple, just not in the way you're interpreting it.
- kyle_martin1 6y ago
  Because if you don't take trips then you don't make any money. They felt entitled and refused to adapt when the market demanded it. That's irrational.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 6y ago
    In discussions like these I like to start from a basic premise: people aren't stupid. It's obvious to the drivers that if they don't take trips, then they don't make money. Clearly then, they've decided that below a certain dollar amount, it make more sense to them to play computer games than take a fare. How they arrived at that conclusion, I don't know. But I have faith that it made sense to them. I do very small software projects for people I find online. I have a minimum fee. If I take on projects below that minimum, I'd have more work, but I have determined that it's in my best interest to hold out for that minimum rate. If this means that I don't make money on that side gig a particular day or week, so be it. I have my reasons for doing that and they won't necessarily make sense to anyone looking in from the outside.
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      It's trivial to find out why looking at driver's posts online: There's a minimum time cost to them for each ride or delivery. There's the time you spend finding out exactly where the person is, there can be a delay between jobs, there's delays when picking up an order. Someone who drives 10 miles for one job will spend much less time than someone who drives 1 mile for 10 jobs. And since they have X units of time to spend in the app, they'll start making less and less per mile driven. They also don't get paid for the time spent going to a pickup unless it exceeds a certain length: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/24/16533940/uber-long-pickups-late-cancellations-driver-earnings https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/24/16533940/uber-long-picku... It's easy enough to see how, at some point, they start to get paid so little that it's in their best interest to just not drive and spend the gas and their effort __ Here's a severe case showing someone go through that exact experience: > I accepted the pick-up and app informed me that the customer was 13 miles away I drove there[...] pressed my App for the drop-off Destination [...] and saw that drop-off was 1 mile away > Total time of trip, back and forth, 45 to 50 minutes and 29 miles , and I earned $8 dollars > So, after thinking about it, I have decided to ‘decline’ all trips that are more than 10 miles away from me and do not say that it is gonna be a ‘long trip’ https://ride.guru/lounge/p/uber-drivers-how-far-will-you-drive-to-pick-up-a-fare-not-knowing-their-destination https://ride.guru/lounge/p/uber-drivers-how-far-will-you-dri...
barry-cotter 6y ago
The drivers were not investors in the company; it failing was not a huge problem for them. Having a strong preference for leisure is totally ok. The drivers didn’t have enough stock and weren’t paid enough to motivate them to work the hours the company needed to be viable. The company failed. The investors lost all their money. The founders and employees got nothing. That’s capitalism. If they’d been right they’d have made massive bank and that too would have been capitalism. Workers get to play capitalism too. Everyone played. Everyone made their choices and the company failed.
- kyle_martin1 6y ago
  The drivers are franchisees so they have huge interest in keeping the company going, otherwise they wouldn't get any trips. It was their problem. They just didn't want to change.
  - ric2b 6y ago
    They can just drive for another company, they don't suffer any significant loss the same way a McDonald's restaurant would if McD's folded and had to overhaul the entire restaurant. The drivers just install another app on their phone.