12 ms·

Uber Is Hurting Drivers Like Me in Its Legal Fight in California

43 points by gkop 6y ago

Justsignedup 6y ago
Mirror: https://web.archive.org/web/20200904091002/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/04/opinion/uber-drivers-california-regulations.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200904091002/https://www.nytim... Accurately describes every single conversation I had with every Uber/Lyft driver.
bhupy 6y ago
A reminder that one driver's story, while important and valuable, needs to be contextualized against the aggregate polling data (as imperfect as it is). https://ac32b1ba-8f5b-411f-91ab-b7ae9a046606.usrfiles.com/ugd/ac32b1_1b6e5bdc853e466398779c53540ada0c.pdf https://ac32b1ba-8f5b-411f-91ab-b7ae9a046606.usrfiles.com/ug... Unfortunately, until we actually have the election, this is all just anecdotes fighting against potentially flawed data.
- henryfjordan 6y ago
  That poll is an exercise in false-dichotomy. They didn't ask "What percentage of drivers would like to earn at least minimum wage after expenses?". I bet you 80%+ of respondents would have said yes to that too. Given the choice between "Let us be ICs" and "Uber/Lyft leave CA" or "Half of drivers will lose their jobs", of course the data is going to show people want to be ICs. That choice ignores the third option, which is Uber/Lyft treat people with dignity.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Did you read the poll? The questions were fairly straightforward: "Thinking about your work driving or delivering with app-based rideshare and food delivery companies, do you prefer to be an independent contractor or an employee?" "Even though you are not sure, if you had to choose would you prefer to be an... Independent contractor 58 Employee 42" "Thinking about your own income, for you is rideshare driving/delivery: Your only personal source of income 19 Your biggest source of personal income, but not the only source 17 A significant source of personal income, but not the biggest 25 Just supplemental income, not a significant source of personal income 38" I recommend reading through the entire thing: https://ac32b1ba-8f5b-411f-91ab-b7ae9a046606.usrfiles.com/ugd/ac32b1_63f0f776a70a4cc5b532f4521ebab453.pdf https://ac32b1ba-8f5b-411f-91ab-b7ae9a046606.usrfiles.com/ug... To reiterate, there is no substitute for a full election, and the design of polling questions will be litigated forever. But it's still better than a single heartfelt anecdote.
    - henryfjordan 6y ago
      You cannot take a poll in isolation like that. It's not like the drivers don't understand the implications involved in the questions. Uber and Lyft have spent a ton of money making it seem as though they have no choice in the matter and will have to fire half the drivers and put the other half on rigid schedules if they become employees. That context will affect the answers. The real nugget of gold in that study is Q13. 83% of drivers support a third class of worker (between employee and IC). CA's Congress failed drivers with AB5. They should have defined that third class. Now Uber/Lyft get to dictate the terms we will vote on instead and drivers lose either way.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        > You cannot take a poll in isolation like that. No more than you can take a single driver's anecdote in a NYT Op-Ed in isolation. The argument is that the aggregate poll is better than the anecdote, not that it's the platonic ideal. > The real nugget of gold in that study is Q13. 83% of drivers support a third class of worker (between employee and IC). CA's Congress failed drivers with AB5. They should have defined that third class. Now Uber/Lyft get to dictate the terms we will vote on instead and drivers lose either way. I'm not sure how that refutes anything, it's strictly additive. One question asks about the status quo, the next question asks about how they feel about a future proposal. Both provide pretty valuable data in analyzing the political popularity. And of course Uber/Lyft get to dictate the terms, until now the legislators dictated it by passing AB5 (the current status quo). From the first set of questions, it's pretty clear that drivers polled feel differently about the status quo. Now Uber/Lyft are proposing an alternative.
        henryfjordan 6y ago
        A flawed poll is not necessarily better or worse than an anecdote. I believe the poll is polluted by the FUD Uber/Lyft have been propagating (including most recently threatening to shut down with little notice if they didn't get their way in court). Of course someone who wants to work will say they prefer the option that seems more safe/stable, and that's being an IC right now.
formercoder 6y ago
All good points. But is it really better from a returns standpoint for Uber to cease California ops or was that just a ploy? If that move will make them the most money under the new regulatory regime, no one can compel them to operate.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  I think ceasing operations was due to not having the infrastructure in place to operate legally under the new requirements. Uber is a big business and these are significant changes to how they can run their business, so they may need a long time to get things in order to operate within the new mandate.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    They had over a year to comply since the law was enacted. And even more since Dynamax was ruled on.
    - dodobirdlord 6y ago
      They made the changes that they thought were necessarily for their drivers to not qualify as employees under the new law. Then on short notice a court ruling determined that they hadn’t done enough and the drivers would still count as employees. That’s the “short notice” aspect.
  - formercoder 6y ago
    It could hurt their margins big time. They’re public now - investors want cash flow.
lhorie 6y ago
I have a hard time coming to terms with the dichotomy between drivers saying they used to be able to make a lot of money before Uber and riders saying that getting a cab then was a nightmare if they even managed to get one. Another thing that bugs me is quotes like this: > While Uber cries out that having to follow the law would hurt its business model, Uber’s leadership curiously neglects to mention the billions of dollars in cash reserves it has told investors it has available or the generous compensation packages offered to its executives Do people not bother to do math anymore? How much do they think these "billions of dollars" would yield in terms of ongoing driver income, had it somehow been distributed evenly (even at the cost of feasibility)?
- novok 6y ago
  I'm sad to say, but the kind of person who chooses to be a full time Uber driver probably doesn't have a lot of better options, and math & diving into economic history beyond their personal situation is probably not their strong suite.
  - lhorie 6y ago
    The thing is that I've seen this rhetoric also come from e.g. college students (about income tax from the top 1%), among others. I mean, I get that wealth inequalities are disparate and that everyone wants more of nice things. It just makes it harder to sympathize with someone's cause when their line of argumentation boils down to "to solve the problem, just give me more money". I want more money too, get in line!
- tarr11 6y ago
  Things also weren't that great for drivers before Uber became ubiquitous. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/nyregion/new-york-taxi-drivers-unsure-they-will-see-benefits-of-a-fare-hike.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/nyregion/new-york-taxi-dr...
- sjtindell 6y ago
  It’s easy for me as a tech worker (safe) to point it out, but there’s been a gigantic shift to “woe is me” economics in the last 5-10 years. Inequality, wage gaps, slow wage growth, these statistics have spread and UBI support, etc. are accelerating. I honestly believe the technology sector has had something to do with it. All the $8 an hour workers are tired of seeing some 20 something on the cover of Forbes after what (they imagine) was just a few hours of coding a silly flapping bird app. They also have no conception of net worth vs. liquid cash. Their obsession over the Bezos bank account leads to increasingly ignorant statements like “he could just spend the whole $100 billion and end world hunger!”. It’s evidenced in statements like this about Uber’s cash. No mention of the fact that they lose nearly a billion, with a B, dollars every single quarter. The extremely competitive market they are in for talent leading to those pay packages. Similar to the discussions around rent control in my opinion, there’s very little substance. If you dig, it comes down to a simple truth - the prices are too high for me, I want them lower. That person has too much money, I want it.
yibg 6y ago
I'm torn on the whole gig economy topic. On one hand I sympathize with the drivers, in the precariousness of their work. And of course we all want to make more money. On the other hand, the businesses may not be sustainable both from an economic perspective and from a driver elasticity perspective if drivers are all employees (and especially if they're full time employees). Both sides seems to want their cake and eat it too. Drivers want benefits and better pay, but also the flexibility to pick their own hours and have uber / lyft be in business long term. Uber and Lyft want to keep drivers as "contractors" but not have people complain. If the tradeoff are between: 1) flexible schedule and being able to work for multiple gig companies at the same time vs benefits and stability. 2) Making more money vs leaving uber / lyft in a position where they can be a sustainable business (I assume most drivers don't want them to go out of business). Then where is the balance point? And is there another setup that satisfies both parties?
- adrianN 6y ago
  If a business doesn't make economic sense without exploiting workers, maybe hat business just shouldn't exist.
  - yibg 6y ago
    While that's true, where does that leave the workers? If we consider the benefits of the drivers, does Uber and Lyft going out of business help them? Seems like what they (or at least the driver in the article) wants is for Uber to keep paying him, but just pay more.
  - gen3 6y ago
    Thats pretty dismissive to the problem at hand. Uber could run an operation with full time employees and benefits. The downside is that they would have to hire less people, those people would have to work set hours, and there would be a good chance they pull out of rural markets. For many Uber drivers, the flexibility is the selling point. You could work 60 hours, or you could work 3. You can work only during the weekends or during the summer and still maintain your regular job. Like many things in life, this problem is more nuanced. I'm curious where it will go.
jedberg 6y ago
Prop 22 is the ballot initiative in California that will overturn AB5, the law that Uber is fighting against. They have a huge uphill marketing battle ahead of them. Every time I see an ad for prop 22, almost all the comments say roughly: "I'm voting no because drivers deserve health care and sick leave!" These folks don't realize (because the prop 22 people are doing a terrible job at marketing) that prop 22 actually requires those things to be provided. I think a lot more people would favor prop 22 if they actually read it.
- Reedx 6y ago
  I always wonder what % of people actually read them compared to those who just see a slogan and decide based on that. Probably similar to "read headline" vs "read article"?
  - jedberg 6y ago
    Based on my experience, almost no one reads them. Every two years I put together a California voters guide and post it on Facebook for my friends. Many of my friends are very politically engaged, and even they have told me that they appreciate my effort because the don't have the time to do the research. I read the full text, I "follow the money", and I read the editorials from all the major papers in the state, if available, and then summarize that. Obviously I have a personal bias which shows through, but I try to use as much objective fact as possible. It seems like most people don't get much further than the legislative analysis, if they even get past the headline. And the headlines have been getting worse every cycle. It's obvious that the people writing the propositions know that most people vote based on the title alone. I'm the only person I know who reads the full text of every proposition.
- 762236 6y ago
  I just read it. It sounds like the proposition is treating the drivers as employees via a big compromise, where the companies cover people falling through the cracks. Do companies typically offer contractors such protections? It sounds like employment to me.
scarface74 6y ago
That’s why I and my fellow drivers were relieved when California legislators last year passed a law effectively requiring Uber, Lyft and similar companies to extend workplace benefits and protections to drivers, including a minimum wage and paid sick leave. But this is something the companies have refused to do, arguing that we are independent contractors. The elephant in the room is that the only reason this is an issue is because we as a country have an ass backwards system where your health care is tied to your employer. If we as a country think that there everyone deserves a “livable income” (and I agree), make corporations pay the taxes necessary and increase the amount, availability and access to the Earned Income Tax Credit.
anonAndOn 6y ago
Why not do what they did in SF for restaurant workers?[0] Add a CA Health Tax to your fare and give the drivers a public health benefit. If it means I have to pay an extra $1 on that $10 fare, so be it. They get health insurance and I still have access to a valuable service. [0]https://healthysanfrancisco.org/ https://healthysanfrancisco.org/
namesbc 6y ago
Uber functions as a payday loan company. They take advantage of desperation to survive the next month to leave workers in a worse place than if they didn't use them at all. As a contracted driver, you may be able to pay your next bill by driving, but once car maintenance and taxes come due you will have earned less than minimum wage, and would have made more money working at Starbucks. This is why most drivers leave after less than 6 months when they have discovered they have been scammed.
dshep 6y ago
These discussions always remind me of this MMM blog about his experience being an Uber driver: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/11/22/mr-money-mustache-uber-driver/ https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/11/22/mr-money-mustache... This is one of my favorite quotes: "Imagine developing a company specifically to take advantage of people’s ignorance of how expensive it really is to drive their own car. What would this company look like?" (the answer is of course that it would look like very much like Uber or any other ridesharing company)
- paxys 6y ago
  Good post, but I'm inclined to take all the stated numbers with a grain of salt. Not because he is lying, but because so many drivers have so many different experiences. Some are paying off their car, some aren't. Some of their cars get 15 MPG, some 35. Some drive in rush-hour traffic, others on airport or suburban trips. Some drive a few hours a week during surge pricing and if they get lucky can make more than what they do in their day jobs. Even the standard IRS vehicle deprecation rate is wildly inaccurate in most cases. To me that highlights a more important problem - Uber/Lyft are enjoying the benefits of a massive data asymmetry. Neither customers nor drivers can make the right economic decision because we have a very, very tiny slice of the whole picture. Maybe one quick way to start solving the rideshare problem is force them to publish this data publicly?
simonblack 6y ago
Uber is a scam, designed to cream off lots of cash from drivers and investors alike. If you're an investor or a driver, you won't make money, and you'll be out of pocket. The only people who gain from Uber are the Uber Administration.

43 points by gkop 6y ago

Mirror: https://web.archive.org/web/20200904091002/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/04/opinion/uber-drivers-california-regulations.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200904091002/https://www.nytim... Accurately describes every single conversation I had with every Uber/Lyft driver.

bhupy 6y ago

A reminder that one driver's story, while important and valuable, needs to be contextualized against the aggregate polling data (as imperfect as it is). https://ac32b1ba-8f5b-411f-91ab-b7ae9a046606.usrfiles.com/ugd/ac32b1_1b6e5bdc853e466398779c53540ada0c.pdf https://ac32b1ba-8f5b-411f-91ab-b7ae9a046606.usrfiles.com/ug... Unfortunately, until we actually have the election, this is all just anecdotes fighting against potentially flawed data.

henryfjordan 6y ago
That poll is an exercise in false-dichotomy. They didn't ask "What percentage of drivers would like to earn at least minimum wage after expenses?". I bet you 80%+ of respondents would have said yes to that too. Given the choice between "Let us be ICs" and "Uber/Lyft leave CA" or "Half of drivers will lose their jobs", of course the data is going to show people want to be ICs. That choice ignores the third option, which is Uber/Lyft treat people with dignity.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Did you read the poll? The questions were fairly straightforward: "Thinking about your work driving or delivering with app-based rideshare and food delivery companies, do you prefer to be an independent contractor or an employee?" "Even though you are not sure, if you had to choose would you prefer to be an... Independent contractor 58 Employee 42" "Thinking about your own income, for you is rideshare driving/delivery: Your only personal source of income 19 Your biggest source of personal income, but not the only source 17 A significant source of personal income, but not the biggest 25 Just supplemental income, not a significant source of personal income 38" I recommend reading through the entire thing: https://ac32b1ba-8f5b-411f-91ab-b7ae9a046606.usrfiles.com/ugd/ac32b1_63f0f776a70a4cc5b532f4521ebab453.pdf https://ac32b1ba-8f5b-411f-91ab-b7ae9a046606.usrfiles.com/ug... To reiterate, there is no substitute for a full election, and the design of polling questions will be litigated forever. But it's still better than a single heartfelt anecdote.
  - henryfjordan 6y ago
    You cannot take a poll in isolation like that. It's not like the drivers don't understand the implications involved in the questions. Uber and Lyft have spent a ton of money making it seem as though they have no choice in the matter and will have to fire half the drivers and put the other half on rigid schedules if they become employees. That context will affect the answers. The real nugget of gold in that study is Q13. 83% of drivers support a third class of worker (between employee and IC). CA's Congress failed drivers with AB5. They should have defined that third class. Now Uber/Lyft get to dictate the terms we will vote on instead and drivers lose either way.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      > You cannot take a poll in isolation like that. No more than you can take a single driver's anecdote in a NYT Op-Ed in isolation. The argument is that the aggregate poll is better than the anecdote, not that it's the platonic ideal. > The real nugget of gold in that study is Q13. 83% of drivers support a third class of worker (between employee and IC). CA's Congress failed drivers with AB5. They should have defined that third class. Now Uber/Lyft get to dictate the terms we will vote on instead and drivers lose either way. I'm not sure how that refutes anything, it's strictly additive. One question asks about the status quo, the next question asks about how they feel about a future proposal. Both provide pretty valuable data in analyzing the political popularity. And of course Uber/Lyft get to dictate the terms, until now the legislators dictated it by passing AB5 (the current status quo). From the first set of questions, it's pretty clear that drivers polled feel differently about the status quo. Now Uber/Lyft are proposing an alternative.
      - henryfjordan 6y ago
        A flawed poll is not necessarily better or worse than an anecdote. I believe the poll is polluted by the FUD Uber/Lyft have been propagating (including most recently threatening to shut down with little notice if they didn't get their way in court). Of course someone who wants to work will say they prefer the option that seems more safe/stable, and that's being an IC right now.

formercoder 6y ago

All good points. But is it really better from a returns standpoint for Uber to cease California ops or was that just a ploy? If that move will make them the most money under the new regulatory regime, no one can compel them to operate.

dodobirdlord 6y ago
I think ceasing operations was due to not having the infrastructure in place to operate legally under the new requirements. Uber is a big business and these are significant changes to how they can run their business, so they may need a long time to get things in order to operate within the new mandate.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  They had over a year to comply since the law was enacted. And even more since Dynamax was ruled on.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    They made the changes that they thought were necessarily for their drivers to not qualify as employees under the new law. Then on short notice a court ruling determined that they hadn’t done enough and the drivers would still count as employees. That’s the “short notice” aspect.
- formercoder 6y ago
  It could hurt their margins big time. They’re public now - investors want cash flow.

lhorie 6y ago

I have a hard time coming to terms with the dichotomy between drivers saying they used to be able to make a lot of money before Uber and riders saying that getting a cab then was a nightmare if they even managed to get one. Another thing that bugs me is quotes like this: > While Uber cries out that having to follow the law would hurt its business model, Uber’s leadership curiously neglects to mention the billions of dollars in cash reserves it has told investors it has available or the generous compensation packages offered to its executives Do people not bother to do math anymore? How much do they think these "billions of dollars" would yield in terms of ongoing driver income, had it somehow been distributed evenly (even at the cost of feasibility)?

novok 6y ago
I'm sad to say, but the kind of person who chooses to be a full time Uber driver probably doesn't have a lot of better options, and math & diving into economic history beyond their personal situation is probably not their strong suite.
- lhorie 6y ago
  The thing is that I've seen this rhetoric also come from e.g. college students (about income tax from the top 1%), among others. I mean, I get that wealth inequalities are disparate and that everyone wants more of nice things. It just makes it harder to sympathize with someone's cause when their line of argumentation boils down to "to solve the problem, just give me more money". I want more money too, get in line!
tarr11 6y ago
Things also weren't that great for drivers before Uber became ubiquitous. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/nyregion/new-york-taxi-drivers-unsure-they-will-see-benefits-of-a-fare-hike.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/nyregion/new-york-taxi-dr...
sjtindell 6y ago
It’s easy for me as a tech worker (safe) to point it out, but there’s been a gigantic shift to “woe is me” economics in the last 5-10 years. Inequality, wage gaps, slow wage growth, these statistics have spread and UBI support, etc. are accelerating. I honestly believe the technology sector has had something to do with it. All the $8 an hour workers are tired of seeing some 20 something on the cover of Forbes after what (they imagine) was just a few hours of coding a silly flapping bird app. They also have no conception of net worth vs. liquid cash. Their obsession over the Bezos bank account leads to increasingly ignorant statements like “he could just spend the whole $100 billion and end world hunger!”. It’s evidenced in statements like this about Uber’s cash. No mention of the fact that they lose nearly a billion, with a B, dollars every single quarter. The extremely competitive market they are in for talent leading to those pay packages. Similar to the discussions around rent control in my opinion, there’s very little substance. If you dig, it comes down to a simple truth - the prices are too high for me, I want them lower. That person has too much money, I want it.

yibg 6y ago

I'm torn on the whole gig economy topic. On one hand I sympathize with the drivers, in the precariousness of their work. And of course we all want to make more money. On the other hand, the businesses may not be sustainable both from an economic perspective and from a driver elasticity perspective if drivers are all employees (and especially if they're full time employees). Both sides seems to want their cake and eat it too. Drivers want benefits and better pay, but also the flexibility to pick their own hours and have uber / lyft be in business long term. Uber and Lyft want to keep drivers as "contractors" but not have people complain. If the tradeoff are between: 1) flexible schedule and being able to work for multiple gig companies at the same time vs benefits and stability. 2) Making more money vs leaving uber / lyft in a position where they can be a sustainable business (I assume most drivers don't want them to go out of business). Then where is the balance point? And is there another setup that satisfies both parties?

adrianN 6y ago
If a business doesn't make economic sense without exploiting workers, maybe hat business just shouldn't exist.
- yibg 6y ago
  While that's true, where does that leave the workers? If we consider the benefits of the drivers, does Uber and Lyft going out of business help them? Seems like what they (or at least the driver in the article) wants is for Uber to keep paying him, but just pay more.
- gen3 6y ago
  Thats pretty dismissive to the problem at hand. Uber could run an operation with full time employees and benefits. The downside is that they would have to hire less people, those people would have to work set hours, and there would be a good chance they pull out of rural markets. For many Uber drivers, the flexibility is the selling point. You could work 60 hours, or you could work 3. You can work only during the weekends or during the summer and still maintain your regular job. Like many things in life, this problem is more nuanced. I'm curious where it will go.

jedberg 6y ago

Prop 22 is the ballot initiative in California that will overturn AB5, the law that Uber is fighting against. They have a huge uphill marketing battle ahead of them. Every time I see an ad for prop 22, almost all the comments say roughly: "I'm voting no because drivers deserve health care and sick leave!" These folks don't realize (because the prop 22 people are doing a terrible job at marketing) that prop 22 actually requires those things to be provided. I think a lot more people would favor prop 22 if they actually read it.

Reedx 6y ago
I always wonder what % of people actually read them compared to those who just see a slogan and decide based on that. Probably similar to "read headline" vs "read article"?
- jedberg 6y ago
  Based on my experience, almost no one reads them. Every two years I put together a California voters guide and post it on Facebook for my friends. Many of my friends are very politically engaged, and even they have told me that they appreciate my effort because the don't have the time to do the research. I read the full text, I "follow the money", and I read the editorials from all the major papers in the state, if available, and then summarize that. Obviously I have a personal bias which shows through, but I try to use as much objective fact as possible. It seems like most people don't get much further than the legislative analysis, if they even get past the headline. And the headlines have been getting worse every cycle. It's obvious that the people writing the propositions know that most people vote based on the title alone. I'm the only person I know who reads the full text of every proposition.
762236 6y ago
I just read it. It sounds like the proposition is treating the drivers as employees via a big compromise, where the companies cover people falling through the cracks. Do companies typically offer contractors such protections? It sounds like employment to me.

scarface74 6y ago

That’s why I and my fellow drivers were relieved when California legislators last year passed a law effectively requiring Uber, Lyft and similar companies to extend workplace benefits and protections to drivers, including a minimum wage and paid sick leave. But this is something the companies have refused to do, arguing that we are independent contractors. The elephant in the room is that the only reason this is an issue is because we as a country have an ass backwards system where your health care is tied to your employer. If we as a country think that there everyone deserves a “livable income” (and I agree), make corporations pay the taxes necessary and increase the amount, availability and access to the Earned Income Tax Credit.

anonAndOn 6y ago

Why not do what they did in SF for restaurant workers?[0] Add a CA Health Tax to your fare and give the drivers a public health benefit. If it means I have to pay an extra $1 on that $10 fare, so be it. They get health insurance and I still have access to a valuable service. [0]https://healthysanfrancisco.org/ https://healthysanfrancisco.org/

namesbc 6y ago

Uber functions as a payday loan company. They take advantage of desperation to survive the next month to leave workers in a worse place than if they didn't use them at all. As a contracted driver, you may be able to pay your next bill by driving, but once car maintenance and taxes come due you will have earned less than minimum wage, and would have made more money working at Starbucks. This is why most drivers leave after less than 6 months when they have discovered they have been scammed.

dshep 6y ago

These discussions always remind me of this MMM blog about his experience being an Uber driver: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/11/22/mr-money-mustache-uber-driver/ https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/11/22/mr-money-mustache... This is one of my favorite quotes: "Imagine developing a company specifically to take advantage of people’s ignorance of how expensive it really is to drive their own car. What would this company look like?" (the answer is of course that it would look like very much like Uber or any other ridesharing company)

paxys 6y ago
Good post, but I'm inclined to take all the stated numbers with a grain of salt. Not because he is lying, but because so many drivers have so many different experiences. Some are paying off their car, some aren't. Some of their cars get 15 MPG, some 35. Some drive in rush-hour traffic, others on airport or suburban trips. Some drive a few hours a week during surge pricing and if they get lucky can make more than what they do in their day jobs. Even the standard IRS vehicle deprecation rate is wildly inaccurate in most cases. To me that highlights a more important problem - Uber/Lyft are enjoying the benefits of a massive data asymmetry. Neither customers nor drivers can make the right economic decision because we have a very, very tiny slice of the whole picture. Maybe one quick way to start solving the rideshare problem is force them to publish this data publicly?

simonblack 6y ago

Uber is a scam, designed to cream off lots of cash from drivers and investors alike. If you're an investor or a driver, you won't make money, and you'll be out of pocket. The only people who gain from Uber are the Uber Administration.