3 ms·

I actually lived in Manhattan for years... My girlfriend at the time used to take a 'gypsy cab' from the Bronx to downtown everyday. Though, I admit when I live

I actually lived in Manhattan for years... My girlfriend at the time used to take a 'gypsy cab' from the Bronx to downtown everyday. Though, I admit when I lived in Staten Island it is was an issue. Thing is, companies are not servicing those areas because its not profitable. That makes me extremely leery of claims that gig drivers can make minimum wage ( or more) in those areas. I feel the drivers are basically subsidizing the ride companies profits. edit: which means, I ultimately feel these companies will go out of business.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> I feel the drivers are basically subsidizing the ride companies profits. Since the ride companies don't make any profits... this cannot be a true statement.
- mech422 6y ago
  LOL - true... But that felt like just rubbing it in :-P Also, they all seem to be trying to pivot to delivery and self-driving cars, so I guess they have doubts about profitability with the current setup.
leereeves 6y ago
Aren't the investors still subsidizing the cost of the rides? It will be interesting to see how much those less profitable routes cost when Uber starts trying to monetize.
toast0 6y ago
> Thing is, companies are not servicing those areas because its not profitable. That makes me extremely leery of claims that gig drivers can make minimum wage ( or more) in those areas. I feel the drivers are basically subsidizing the ride companies profits. Are licensed cabs not serving those areas because it's not profitable, or are they not serving those areas because other areas are more profitable and the licensing regime's medalion limits mean the more profitable areas won't be saturated with (licensed) taxis. Unlicensed taxis could mean less profitable, but still profitable realms are able to be serviced, because there are more taxis. It also makes it more possible to profit because the prices aren't fixed, and some of the costs of licensed cabs can be avoided (at possible peril). It does seem like mostly a scheme to subsidize rides (and vehicle leases) by investors, with little benefit for the drivers. I also am deeply suspect of the long term health of the current unlicensed taxi services; but there's certainly potential.
- mech422 6y ago
  >>Are licensed cabs not serving those areas because it's not profitable, or are they not serving those areas because other areas are more profitable and the licensing regime's medallion limits mean the more profitable areas won't be saturated with (licensed) taxis. Personally, I'd vote for 'not profitable'. Not every place that lacks decent cab service is limited by medallions. I'd personally guess that most places lacking service are small towns and suburbs. In those cases, I don't think lack of medallions is an issue. Also, personal anecdata - I take Lyft about 5-10 times a month with the same stops each time. I have never gotten the same driver twice. This just makes it feel like a big ponzi scheme to me, with fresh drivers coming in as old drivers wise up and move on... TBF - I use doordash quite a lot also, and have the same experience with 'dashers' - never the same one twice.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> I feel the drivers are basically subsidizing the ride companies profits. Since the ride companies don't make any profits... this cannot be a true statement.

mech422 6y ago
LOL - true... But that felt like just rubbing it in :-P Also, they all seem to be trying to pivot to delivery and self-driving cars, so I guess they have doubts about profitability with the current setup.

leereeves 6y ago

Aren't the investors still subsidizing the cost of the rides? It will be interesting to see how much those less profitable routes cost when Uber starts trying to monetize.

toast0 6y ago

> Thing is, companies are not servicing those areas because its not profitable. That makes me extremely leery of claims that gig drivers can make minimum wage ( or more) in those areas. I feel the drivers are basically subsidizing the ride companies profits. Are licensed cabs not serving those areas because it's not profitable, or are they not serving those areas because other areas are more profitable and the licensing regime's medalion limits mean the more profitable areas won't be saturated with (licensed) taxis. Unlicensed taxis could mean less profitable, but still profitable realms are able to be serviced, because there are more taxis. It also makes it more possible to profit because the prices aren't fixed, and some of the costs of licensed cabs can be avoided (at possible peril). It does seem like mostly a scheme to subsidize rides (and vehicle leases) by investors, with little benefit for the drivers. I also am deeply suspect of the long term health of the current unlicensed taxi services; but there's certainly potential.

mech422 6y ago
>>Are licensed cabs not serving those areas because it's not profitable, or are they not serving those areas because other areas are more profitable and the licensing regime's medallion limits mean the more profitable areas won't be saturated with (licensed) taxis. Personally, I'd vote for 'not profitable'. Not every place that lacks decent cab service is limited by medallions. I'd personally guess that most places lacking service are small towns and suburbs. In those cases, I don't think lack of medallions is an issue. Also, personal anecdata - I take Lyft about 5-10 times a month with the same stops each time. I have never gotten the same driver twice. This just makes it feel like a big ponzi scheme to me, with fresh drivers coming in as old drivers wise up and move on... TBF - I use doordash quite a lot also, and have the same experience with 'dashers' - never the same one twice.