4 ms·

I think this brings up a problem though. By raising the cost of labor, you're more incentivized to try to make sure that labor is used efficiently. This is why,

I think this brings up a problem though. By raising the cost of labor, you're more incentivized to try to make sure that labor is used efficiently. This is why, pre-Uber, it was hard to impossible to get taxis in some small towns, suburbs, or less-active parts of the city. If you're paying someone minimum wage whether they're actively driving someone for a fare or not, you can't afford to have someone on the clock out in the middle of nowhere where there's a low chance they will ever get a ride. One of the benefits of the current system is that being available to start a ride is essentially "free", both for the driver and the passenger. I've had times where I called a Lyft, and had it be someone who literally was living in the same apartment building I was in, and walked down to their car, drove out to the street, and picked me up. Presumably they were just at home, but still active in the app to take rides. This helps to expand coverage for pickups to areas where it wouldn't make sense to have a car just actively circling. Drivers have a reason to be searching for a ride near them, even if there's a low chance of it popping up. How do you solve this? We see this issue in other industries as well - food deserts are a similar issue. It's expensive to run a full grocery store, so you can only afford to put them in places where they'll see enough traffic to warrant it. But as a general culture, there's value in services that aren't economically viable on their own. Optimally, some of this would be solved with public transit or such, but that can't just be done overnight, or to everywhere it's needed, so what's the in-between?

Nbox9 6y ago
Seattle doesn’t have this problem at all. You solve this problem by not enacting these rules where they don’t make sense. Seattle does have a ton of Uber drivers that work 60+ hours a week and are barely making ends meet.
- noirbot 6y ago
  I'm not sure I follow? You usually don't just "not have a minimum wage when it doesn't make sense". This is a regulation on contracts - it's not something that will be decided on a case by case basis every day. I mention the difficulty getting rides because I've had this issue before in Seattle. I have a friend who lives in the far northern suburbs, but still in the city, and it can be quite hard to get a cab up there of any variety, presumably because there aren't many people in that area who want to hire one with enough regularity to make it profitable. None of this is to say people shouldn't be paid better. My point is just that there's often a conflict between the fair and just price of a service, and the value that service provides. Obviously, right now that differential is being made up on the backs of workers, which is bad, but swinging things back in the other direction will cause other issues that need to be considered.
foota 6y ago
If I've read it correctly the Seattle policy applies only to drivers while they are driving (presumably including on their way to pick someone up), so this shouldn't limit the amount of Ubers waiting for drivers, though it may limit the number of rides that drivers get because it will reduce the amount of rides demanded as a result of the increased price. I do wonder if this could paradoxically decrease the efficiency of the service if there is less coverage from drivers (if drivers drop off the service from getting fewer rides) and thereby increase the distance needed for a driver to pick up a passenger, on average.

Nbox9 6y ago

Seattle doesn’t have this problem at all. You solve this problem by not enacting these rules where they don’t make sense. Seattle does have a ton of Uber drivers that work 60+ hours a week and are barely making ends meet.

noirbot 6y ago
I'm not sure I follow? You usually don't just "not have a minimum wage when it doesn't make sense". This is a regulation on contracts - it's not something that will be decided on a case by case basis every day. I mention the difficulty getting rides because I've had this issue before in Seattle. I have a friend who lives in the far northern suburbs, but still in the city, and it can be quite hard to get a cab up there of any variety, presumably because there aren't many people in that area who want to hire one with enough regularity to make it profitable. None of this is to say people shouldn't be paid better. My point is just that there's often a conflict between the fair and just price of a service, and the value that service provides. Obviously, right now that differential is being made up on the backs of workers, which is bad, but swinging things back in the other direction will cause other issues that need to be considered.

foota 6y ago

If I've read it correctly the Seattle policy applies only to drivers while they are driving (presumably including on their way to pick someone up), so this shouldn't limit the amount of Ubers waiting for drivers, though it may limit the number of rides that drivers get because it will reduce the amount of rides demanded as a result of the increased price. I do wonder if this could paradoxically decrease the efficiency of the service if there is less coverage from drivers (if drivers drop off the service from getting fewer rides) and thereby increase the distance needed for a driver to pick up a passenger, on average.