3 ms·

Yes, these companies should go out of business. They have been losing billions of dollars every year. They have actively subverted the laws. They should not

Yes, these companies should go out of business. They have been losing billions of dollars every year. They have actively subverted the laws. They should not exist in any sane world.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
I have already filed a preemptive complaint with the FTC and DOJ requesting they block any merger attempt between Uber and Lyft. I encourage you to do the same. A merger would bolster the remaining enterprise's market power, and they're going to shed redundant jobs anyway in a merger ("efficiencies"). Better to let both continue to exist with razor thin margins, like supermarkets. The only stakeholder that benefits from consolidation is shareholders. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation https://www.justice.gov/atr/citizen-complaint-center https://www.justice.gov/atr/citizen-complaint-center
CydeWeys 3y ago
The point is, if Lyft goes out of business, it has the same effect on the market for rideshare prices as an acquisition does, so why not allow the merger so it's less disruptive and more employees get to keep their jobs?
- eganist 3y ago
  If Lyft is allowed to go out of business, it doesn't mean Uber necessarily takes over; it means there'll be opportunities for others (including legacy cab associations) to fill the void. If Lyft dies, if anything it'll spook investors about Uber's prospects given that market forces would have led to the demise of a direct competitor. If the two merge, investors will instead be motivated to bolster the combined firm.
- stale2002 3y ago
  No actually, it doesn't have the same effect, because lyft can simply downsize itself, to only being in profitable areas, which still has positive competitive effects.
  - CydeWeys 3y ago
    Economy of scale exists, though. I don't think there's any subset of its current markets that Lyft can reduce itself down to and be profitable.
- Jochim 3y ago
  Because the shareholders should lose their money.
  - CydeWeys 3y ago
    Lyft shareholders have already lost the vast majority of their investment. And I think we should have better motives here than punitive maliciousness.
- shagie 3y ago
  Which employees? FTEs that work in the corporate office and have gone through a 25% and an unspecified "performance" reduction in force? Merging the two companies would result in many redundancies that would be eliminated. Uber has about 32,000 employees(?! https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/uber/employees/ https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/uber/employees/ ). Lyft has about 3000. I doubt that any M&A of Lyft into Uber would result in Uber being 35,000 employees for long. For the drivers, many work for both ("But even though Uber is the dominant player among drivers, that doesn’t mean there’s a whole lot of driver loyalty. Nearly 80% of drivers have actually signed up for 2 or more services with Lyft, Postmates, the DoorDash driver sign up bonus, UberEats and Amazon Flex, all siphoning drivers away from Uber." https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/ https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/ ) and so removing Lyft as an option isn't as impactful to the market. If a given city has the demand for N drivers - it doesn't matter too much if that's split across multiple services or not other than passenger preference. It probably would impact the cost for passengers since there would be less competition, but that happens in either case of Uber acquiring Lyft or Lyft folding.
geuis 3y ago
Wow talk about an extreme position. Hey, then there's people like me who have relied on Lyft and Uber for years because we don't drive. Even in a city like SF, there are places that are hard to reach without a car.
- wpietri 3y ago
  The notion that money-losing companies should go out of business isn't extreme. That's mainstream chamber-of-commerce thinking. And that's before we even get to the criminal stuff. What's fooled you here is that you've been on the receiving end of a subsidy for a long time. I promise that people got around SF before Uber appeared, and they'll be getting around after it's gone.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    What is probably true is that Uber/Lyft (plus short-term rentals for those willing/able to drive but wanting to forgo car ownership) have made going carless more doable at the margins in some places without incurring huge costs. It's probable in the coming years some people will probably be forced to rethink their lifestyle choices.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Yes, these companies should go out of business. They have been losing billions of dollars every year. They have actively subverted the laws. They should not exist in any sane world.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

I have already filed a preemptive complaint with the FTC and DOJ requesting they block any merger attempt between Uber and Lyft. I encourage you to do the same. A merger would bolster the remaining enterprise's market power, and they're going to shed redundant jobs anyway in a merger ("efficiencies"). Better to let both continue to exist with razor thin margins, like supermarkets. The only stakeholder that benefits from consolidation is shareholders. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/report-antitrust-violation https://www.justice.gov/atr/citizen-complaint-center https://www.justice.gov/atr/citizen-complaint-center

CydeWeys 3y ago

The point is, if Lyft goes out of business, it has the same effect on the market for rideshare prices as an acquisition does, so why not allow the merger so it's less disruptive and more employees get to keep their jobs?

eganist 3y ago
If Lyft is allowed to go out of business, it doesn't mean Uber necessarily takes over; it means there'll be opportunities for others (including legacy cab associations) to fill the void. If Lyft dies, if anything it'll spook investors about Uber's prospects given that market forces would have led to the demise of a direct competitor. If the two merge, investors will instead be motivated to bolster the combined firm.
stale2002 3y ago
No actually, it doesn't have the same effect, because lyft can simply downsize itself, to only being in profitable areas, which still has positive competitive effects.
- CydeWeys 3y ago
  Economy of scale exists, though. I don't think there's any subset of its current markets that Lyft can reduce itself down to and be profitable.
Jochim 3y ago
Because the shareholders should lose their money.
- CydeWeys 3y ago
  Lyft shareholders have already lost the vast majority of their investment. And I think we should have better motives here than punitive maliciousness.
shagie 3y ago
Which employees? FTEs that work in the corporate office and have gone through a 25% and an unspecified "performance" reduction in force? Merging the two companies would result in many redundancies that would be eliminated. Uber has about 32,000 employees(?! https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/uber/employees/ https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/uber/employees/ ). Lyft has about 3000. I doubt that any M&A of Lyft into Uber would result in Uber being 35,000 employees for long. For the drivers, many work for both ("But even though Uber is the dominant player among drivers, that doesn’t mean there’s a whole lot of driver loyalty. Nearly 80% of drivers have actually signed up for 2 or more services with Lyft, Postmates, the DoorDash driver sign up bonus, UberEats and Amazon Flex, all siphoning drivers away from Uber." https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/ https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/ ) and so removing Lyft as an option isn't as impactful to the market. If a given city has the demand for N drivers - it doesn't matter too much if that's split across multiple services or not other than passenger preference. It probably would impact the cost for passengers since there would be less competition, but that happens in either case of Uber acquiring Lyft or Lyft folding.

geuis 3y ago

Wow talk about an extreme position. Hey, then there's people like me who have relied on Lyft and Uber for years because we don't drive. Even in a city like SF, there are places that are hard to reach without a car.

wpietri 3y ago
The notion that money-losing companies should go out of business isn't extreme. That's mainstream chamber-of-commerce thinking. And that's before we even get to the criminal stuff. What's fooled you here is that you've been on the receiving end of a subsidy for a long time. I promise that people got around SF before Uber appeared, and they'll be getting around after it's gone.
- ghaff 3y ago
  What is probably true is that Uber/Lyft (plus short-term rentals for those willing/able to drive but wanting to forgo car ownership) have made going carless more doable at the margins in some places without incurring huge costs. It's probable in the coming years some people will probably be forced to rethink their lifestyle choices.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]