5 ms·

> What point am I missing? What jobs will these drivers work now that they can't drive for Uber or Lyft? The problem is (it appears) you're looking at this sol

by tivert 3y ago

> What point am I missing? What jobs will these drivers work now that they can't drive for Uber or Lyft? The problem is (it appears) you're looking at this solely from the framework of free market dogma. The operation of market is assumed to be optimal, the Uber drivers had a nominal choice when they took a job with Uber, and that nominal choice cures any issue anyone could have with the terms of their employment, etc. While seductive, that framework is oversimple, and misses much. > My point, that you're missing, is that there was no coercion in this decision between driving for ride share versus the alternative. I am not missing that point at all. In fact, I find that point exceedingly tiresome due to how often it's repeated. At it's core, it's an apologia for fully taking advantage of a man's desperation (which I reject), and then twists that into some kind of good deed, so someone can pat themselves on the back for it afterwards (which just adds insult to injury). > How were Uber and Lyft bullying drivers? What I was referring to is their attempt to bully the Minneapolis city government and other governments that may take action to give drivers a better deal.

Manuel_D 3y ago
Again, how are Uber and Lyft taking advantage of drivers' desperation any more than the jobs they're going to have to work instead, now that Uber and Lyft are banned? These drivers already had the opportunity stop driving and work those jobs instead. Why is the former "taking advantage of man's desperation" but the latter is not? > The operation of market is assumed to be optimal, the Uber drivers had a nominal choice when they took a job with Uber, and that nominal choice cures any issue anyone could have with the terms of their employment, etc. > While seductive, that framework is oversimple, and misses much. Except... it does? You're insisting that this misses the point, but you don't actually explain what is misses. Again, what will these drivers be doing to make ends meet when Uber and Lyft leave Minneapolis? Guess what, they already had that choice before and decided that ride share was better. Maybe it was the flexibility, maybe it was the independence, who knows. But they all made the decision that other available employment was worse than driving. True, these drivers were working to put food on the table. But they're still going to be working to put food on the table in whatever job they do after ride share apps shut down in Minneapolis. It's no less "taking advantage of man's desperation".
- tivert 3y ago
  > Again, how are Uber and Lyft taking advantage of drivers' desperation any more than the jobs they're going to have to work instead, now that Uber and Lyft are banned? They're weaseling around minimum wage laws. In Minneapolis, the minimum wage is $15.57/hr (and tips don't count towards it, https://minimumwage.minneapolismn.gov/ https://minimumwage.minneapolismn.gov/). Uber and Lyft are mad Minneapolis is going to make them pay drivers something close to that. https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-uber-and-lyft-drivers-often-earn-less-than-minimum-wage-state-study-says/600349568/ https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-uber-and-lyft-drivers-...: > Uber and Lyft drivers in Minneapolis and St. Paul and greater Minnesota often are paid well below the equivalent of the minimum wage after expenses are deducted, a state-commissioned study has found. > ... > It largely validated the narrative of many drivers, who are considered independent contractors: After taking into account wear and tear on their cars, time spent driving to and from rides, and the cost of gas and other expenses, drivers across the state earn well below the minimum wage they would likely receive if they were employees, not including tips. > However, before expenses, drivers are paid well above the minimum wage while working. https://www.startribune.com/uber-lyft-msp-minneapolis-airport-cheated-pay-scandal/600347709/ https://www.startribune.com/uber-lyft-msp-minneapolis-airpor...: > Minnesota Uber, Lyft drivers say it's getting harder and harder to make a living... > "It's not fair. What Uber pays us just covers our expenses but no profit at all," said Egal, who used to be a taxi cab driver for 15 years before Uber and Lyft disrupted the marketplace and his business. > Again, what will these drivers be doing to make ends meet when Uber and Lyft leave Minneapolis? Guess what, they already had that choice before and decided that ride share was better. Maybe it was the flexibility, maybe it was the independence, who knows. But they all made the decision that other available employment was worse than driving. It's a market right? It will adjust to find a new, better equilibrium. A big assumption you seem to have is that these Uber/Lyft drivers are perfect examples of homo economicus, making fully informed rational decisions about all this, so think you can infer the choice is a good one for them because they made it. However that doesn't seem to be true. If those companies offer a misleading value proposition, they can sustain themselves for some time by with a revolving door of naive and ignorant people who don't understand the misleading economics of the exchange. The competition from that flow of ignorant people (especially if they're more casual) helps keep overall wages low. I wouldn't be surprised of Uber and Lyft have implemented some gambling dynamics for their drivers. It would make sense to offer drivers occasional jackpot days to keep them hooked, while the house wins big as always. Homo economicus is an oversimple fiction; Homo sapiens is real. Understanding the difference goes a long way towards grasping the problems with free market dogma (but certainly not the whole way).

by tivert 3y ago

Manuel_D 3y ago

Again, how are Uber and Lyft taking advantage of drivers' desperation any more than the jobs they're going to have to work instead, now that Uber and Lyft are banned? These drivers already had the opportunity stop driving and work those jobs instead. Why is the former "taking advantage of man's desperation" but the latter is not? > The operation of market is assumed to be optimal, the Uber drivers had a nominal choice when they took a job with Uber, and that nominal choice cures any issue anyone could have with the terms of their employment, etc. > While seductive, that framework is oversimple, and misses much. Except... it does? You're insisting that this misses the point, but you don't actually explain what is misses. Again, what will these drivers be doing to make ends meet when Uber and Lyft leave Minneapolis? Guess what, they already had that choice before and decided that ride share was better. Maybe it was the flexibility, maybe it was the independence, who knows. But they all made the decision that other available employment was worse than driving. True, these drivers were working to put food on the table. But they're still going to be working to put food on the table in whatever job they do after ride share apps shut down in Minneapolis. It's no less "taking advantage of man's desperation".

tivert 3y ago
> Again, how are Uber and Lyft taking advantage of drivers' desperation any more than the jobs they're going to have to work instead, now that Uber and Lyft are banned? They're weaseling around minimum wage laws. In Minneapolis, the minimum wage is $15.57/hr (and tips don't count towards it, https://minimumwage.minneapolismn.gov/ https://minimumwage.minneapolismn.gov/). Uber and Lyft are mad Minneapolis is going to make them pay drivers something close to that. https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-uber-and-lyft-drivers-often-earn-less-than-minimum-wage-state-study-says/600349568/ https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-uber-and-lyft-drivers-...: > Uber and Lyft drivers in Minneapolis and St. Paul and greater Minnesota often are paid well below the equivalent of the minimum wage after expenses are deducted, a state-commissioned study has found. > ... > It largely validated the narrative of many drivers, who are considered independent contractors: After taking into account wear and tear on their cars, time spent driving to and from rides, and the cost of gas and other expenses, drivers across the state earn well below the minimum wage they would likely receive if they were employees, not including tips. > However, before expenses, drivers are paid well above the minimum wage while working. https://www.startribune.com/uber-lyft-msp-minneapolis-airport-cheated-pay-scandal/600347709/ https://www.startribune.com/uber-lyft-msp-minneapolis-airpor...: > Minnesota Uber, Lyft drivers say it's getting harder and harder to make a living... > "It's not fair. What Uber pays us just covers our expenses but no profit at all," said Egal, who used to be a taxi cab driver for 15 years before Uber and Lyft disrupted the marketplace and his business. > Again, what will these drivers be doing to make ends meet when Uber and Lyft leave Minneapolis? Guess what, they already had that choice before and decided that ride share was better. Maybe it was the flexibility, maybe it was the independence, who knows. But they all made the decision that other available employment was worse than driving. It's a market right? It will adjust to find a new, better equilibrium. A big assumption you seem to have is that these Uber/Lyft drivers are perfect examples of homo economicus, making fully informed rational decisions about all this, so think you can infer the choice is a good one for them because they made it. However that doesn't seem to be true. If those companies offer a misleading value proposition, they can sustain themselves for some time by with a revolving door of naive and ignorant people who don't understand the misleading economics of the exchange. The competition from that flow of ignorant people (especially if they're more casual) helps keep overall wages low. I wouldn't be surprised of Uber and Lyft have implemented some gambling dynamics for their drivers. It would make sense to offer drivers occasional jackpot days to keep them hooked, while the house wins big as always. Homo economicus is an oversimple fiction; Homo sapiens is real. Understanding the difference goes a long way towards grasping the problems with free market dogma (but certainly not the whole way).