6 ms·

>To avoid having to pay any difference to make up the hourly wage to drivers, Uber runs an algorithm which kicks drivers out of the app randomly if demand gets

by gruez 2y ago

>To avoid having to pay any difference to make up the hourly wage to drivers, Uber runs an algorithm which kicks drivers out of the app randomly if demand gets too low, without warning or indication of when they can get back in. It can be minutes or hours. So the drivers remain on the road, driving/idling, waiting to get back into the app. The "work" is still getting done, but it doesn't count against Uber. I get legislators want uber drivers to earn a living wage, but expecting uber to continue allowing unlimited amount of drivers to be "online", when they have to pay for them is absurd. >Imagine a small restaurant doing similar, deciding at random slow times instead of sending staff home for the day, they assign them no tables and mark them as off-the-clock. When demand picks up again, they get assigned some tables and resume making money. You're trying to imply small businesses don't do this but this happens all the time. It's not even limited to minimum wage laws. After the ACA was passed, everyone started avoiding hiring people for more than 32 hours if they could, to skirt the "you have to provide healthcare to all full time employees" requirement.

steveBK123 2y ago
If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. They could have also kicked people out for full days, rest of shift, or given an indicator of when they may try again. Something that leaves it more clear they are off and don't linger around to try and get back in. Restaurants/retail will reduce staffing due to demand, but they don't leave people hanging by an on-call thread the way this automated Uber model did. Tends to be more like cutting shifts off early or calling people not to come in. It is not this automated app-driven robo labor optimization. People aren't being told to go outside and maybe they'll get called back in 5 minutes, 1 hour, or 1 day. Agreed a lot of businesses moved people to 32 hour weeks to avoid ACA, which is a different issue.. how's all the on-demand faux contractor workforces healthcare though?
- gruez 2y ago
  >If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. Most of those drivers were presumably enrolled before that legislation was passed/came into force. Blaming uber for having those drivers seems like a stretch. > They could have also kicked people out for full days, rest of shift, or given an indicator of when they may try again. Something that leaves it more clear they are off and don't linger around to try and get back in. Is this a real concern? This seems like something that sucks for the first few days and then everyone realizes what's the new normal and adapts accordingly. I don't doubt uber could have done better here, but characterizing poor UI as "circumvent the NYC law to try and ensure Uber drivers get a fair minimum wage" is a stretch. It's also unclear how uber benefits from drivers being frustrated at the UI. >Restaurants/retail will reduce staffing due to demand, but they don't leave people hanging by an on-call thread the way this automated Uber model did. Uber driver are not "on call". They can sign off at any time. Sure, they might need the money, but in that respect I don't see how that's any different than 0 hour contracts that some restaurants have. >Agreed a lot of businesses moved people to 32 hour weeks to avoid ACA, which is a different issue.. how's all the on-demand faux contractor workforces healthcare though? The point isn't that being an uber driver is a dream job, it's that contrary to your rhetoric of "Imagine a small restaurant doing similar", small restaurants indeed will do something similar, if given the chance.
  - RHSeeger 2y ago
    > I don't doubt uber could have done better here, but characterizing poor UI as "circumvent the NYC law to try and ensure Uber drivers get a fair minimum wage" is a stretch. Honestly, that's _exactly_ what it looks like to me. Law makes it so that they have to pay drivers that are available to drive but aren't actively involved in a fair... so they change the system so that, if they don't have fairs for you you're not considered available to drive. Everything about that reeks of trying to circumvent the law. Now, I don't know that there _is_ a better solution that works with their business model; but the answer to that isn't "cheat", it's "your business model it's sustainable".
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Honestly, that's _exactly_ what it looks like to me. Law makes it so that they have to pay drivers that are available to drive but aren't actively involved in a fair... so they change the system so that, if they don't have fairs for you you're not considered available to drive. Everything about that reeks of trying to circumvent the law. How is this any different than minimum wage laws which are ostensibly enacted to increase worker's salaries, but businesses respond by hiring people for fewer hours? I agree that uber is thwarting legislators' attempt to improve the earnings of uber drivers, but this was the outcome everyone has foresaw, including the legislators. Characterizing it as some cunning chicanery on uber's part is absurd.
      - RHSeeger 2y ago
        > How is this any different than minimum wage laws which are ostensibly enacted to increase worker's salaries, but businesses respond by hiring people for fewer hours? Nobody is hiring more people to counter the laws "to increase worker's salaries", they're hiring fewer workers to counter the laws that require certain benefits (health insurance) for full time workers. That's a totally different issue.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      The actual problem is that it's a stupid law. You effectively have two options. Option one, Uber signs up as many drivers as they have customers during off-peak hours and then if you want to drive only during peak hours to take advantage of surge pricing you can't and if you want a ride then there won't be enough drivers, because they won't sign up any more if they'd have to pay someone for 8 hours to have them only drive for one. Option two, there are that many full-time drivers and then they sign up some additional part-time drivers to satisfy peak demand, but the part-time drivers are part-time and they're not getting paid during off-peak hours. Which one do you want? Notice that there is no one better off under the first option; the people who don't want to work part-time still have the option not to under the second option, the first just prevents them from doing it even if they want to.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. The number of drivers needed at any given time is completely variable. It's obviously a larger number during peak travel periods. Suppose number of drivers needed off-peak is 100 and the number needed at the peak is 500 and they have 300 drivers. They need to sign up another 200 drivers to satisfy the peak demand, but they already have 200 more than they can use off-peak. What would you have them do? They effectively need a large proportion of the drivers to be working part time specifically during peak hours. Moreover, there are many people willing to do that. They're not sitting in their cars idling, they're at home doing chores or other contract work and they only get in their car if the app tells them they can get paid. This is not a problem for the people who are satisfied with it, and why are the people who are unsatisfied with it even doing it? If you don't like driving for Uber, don't do it.
  - II2II 2y ago
    > The number of drivers needed at any given time is completely variable. It's obviously a larger number during peak travel periods. That's variable based upon time of day, not completely variable. It is not a new problem either. Take public transit: drivers may hate split shifts, yet they are given well defined shifts that they are paid for. On top of that, a company that operates through an app ought to have the ability to develop software to relatively reliably predict demand. > Moreover, there are many people willing to do that. Willing, or desperate? For example: relatively few people want to be on-call replacement workers. They either do it because they need the money or they do it because they are hoping to get their foot in the door. Those who do it willingly are typically doing so for extra cash and because they don't have any other obligations (e.g. retirees in some fields). Now imagine that an entire company is based upon the concept of replacement workers. That puts Uber closer to the exploitive end of the spectrum than the opportunity end.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > That's variable based upon time of day, not completely variable. It's completely variable. If there is a major sporting event in your city, the demand is going to be much different than it is at the same time of day when there isn't a major sporting event. Demand is affected by weather, public transit disruptions, current events etc. It's not just time of day. > Take public transit: drivers may hate split shifts, yet they are given well defined shifts that they are paid for. Public transit has internal buffers that absorb demand. You have a bus which seats 40 but typically has 7 passengers. If there is a demand spike, this time you have 35 passengers, but this is still less than 40 so you don't need any more drivers. If that happens with Uber, they suddenly need five times as many drivers. > On top of that, a company that operates through an app ought to have the ability to develop software to relatively reliably predict demand. They could certainly predict part of the demand, but then what? You don't know ahead of time what time of day it's going to rain and cause a ton of people who usually ride a bike to want a ride. There is still a high amount of unpredictable variability in the demand. > Willing, or desperate? For example: relatively few people want to be on-call replacement workers. They either do it because they need the money or they do it because they are hoping to get their foot in the door. Let's consider these people then. Their options are to have no job and likely run into serious financial difficulties, take the on-call job to cover some bills while they look for a better job, or take some even worse job than the on-call job, but that might not be worse in a way that has been legislated against, e.g. because it's two hours away and there is no law against having a four hour round trip commute. The only reason they'd take the on-call job is if their other options are worse. But if their other options are worse then taking away the on-call job option isn't helping them. To actually help them you need to give them some options that are better, in which case you still don't have to prohibit the on-call job because then they'd just choose the better alternative once it's available. > Those who do it willingly are typically doing so for extra cash and because they don't have any other obligations (e.g. retirees in some fields). Then why shouldn't those people be able to do it, and get the extra cash? > Now imagine that an entire company is based upon the concept of replacement workers. Suppose Uber was part of Costco but otherwise operated in an identical way. Is that supposed to make any difference?
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  > If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. Why? All Uber cares about are the fees it collects, which are dependent on the total number of miles and total number of rides. It has no reason to care if its drivers make minimum wage or not, unless it can be shown that if they cannot, Uber will not have enough drivers. Fortunately for Uber, there is no evidence that this is the case.
  - radiator 2y ago
    > It has no reason to care if its drivers make minimum wage or not Is the question "are we breaking any laws" not a reason to care?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      Given the legal record w.r.t Uber, I think its fairly clear that it is not.
Volundr 2y ago
> expecting uber to continue allowing unlimited amount of drivers to be "online", when they have to pay for them is absurd. I don't recall anyone demanding that. Maybe things have changed since then, but back when I worked in restaurants if things were slow I'd be sent home and know when I was expected to be back be that the next day or in time for the dinner rush. I wasn't randomly clocked off for 15-30 minutes, and expected to hang around, then suddenly told I'm back on. In fact we'd call that wage theft, (which is very common in the US). But suddenly for Uber such a thing is acceptable.
- gruez 2y ago
  >I don't recall anyone demanding that. That's seemingly what OP was demanding, given the displeasure he was expressing at uber for the practice. >but back when I worked in restaurants if things were slow I'd be sent home and know when I was expected to be back be that the next day or in time for the dinner rush. I wasn't randomly clocked off for 15-30 minutes, and expected to hang around, then suddenly told I'm back on. In fact we'd call that wage theft, (which is very common in the US). But suddenly for Uber such a thing is acceptable. It's the difference between employment vs working as a contractor. Cab drivers, who also work as independent contractors. No fare, no pay. >The tight margins of the hack trade can leave cabbies feeling frustrated. “Sometimes, I don’t like it, because I have the potential to lose money,” said M. D. Islam, a cabby from Queens who has been driving for six months. He often earns less than $100 a day, he said; if his cab breaks down, or he can’t find passengers, he may end up in the red. 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...
  - Volundr 2y ago
    > That's seemingly what OP was demanding, given the displeasure he was expressing at uber for the practice. From the OP > Uber runs an algorithm which kicks drivers out of the app randomly if demand gets too low, without warning or indication of when they can get back in. It can be minutes or hours. I think the OP makes it very clear that the issue is the lack of communication especially around when they can work next, not that Uber isn't willing to maintain a surge staff during minimal demand.
b112 2y ago
A lot of jurisdictions require 4 hr minimum pay when called in to work. I wonder, would cabs be more competitive of Uber's alternative business model, if Uber had to be fairer? If so, then isn't Uber a sham? And shouldn't market forces see them go? Airbnb used to be cheap... at the start. Then people added insurance, people had to get permits, and so on, just as Hotels, and other do. Now it's not so cheap any more. One of the biggest disruptions is "don't pay your fair share". Or "pay people dirt wages". Companies carve out a new business model, and aren't taxed or forced to pay as incumbents are. Are people against people making a fair wage? Well guess what, you have to pay more for an Uber. And maybe Uber doesn't work as a business model unless it's too expensive. Too bad! Uber has to work in the same ecosystem as everyone else... or it's a farce.
- gruez 2y ago
  >A lot of jurisdictions require 4 hr minimum pay when called in to work. >I wonder, would cabs be more competitive of Uber's alternative business model, if Uber had to be fairer? None of which applies to cabs, who are also independent contractors. For instance >The tight margins of the hack trade can leave cabbies feeling frustrated. “Sometimes, I don’t like it, because I have the potential to lose money,” said M. D. Islam, a cabby from Queens who has been driving for six months. He often earns less than $100 a day, he said; if his cab breaks down, or he can’t find passengers, he may end up in the red. 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...
- steveBK123 2y ago
  Re: ABNB People book on this platform thinking it’s vetted somehow. Well in an area I vacation there was a fatal fire at a weekly rental home with unlicensed electrical work, no working smoke detectors and no license to rent the unit (requires a town inspection). Of course the renters had used an app platform that gives them the illusion that these are somehow legal vetted and safe. Instead you can end up in a rental with safety standards well below developing world standards.
uoaei 2y ago
> expecting uber to continue allowing unlimited amount of drivers to be "online", when they have to pay for them is absurd. The market they operate is of their own making, there is no "free market" argument to be made here. What's absurd is the mischaracterization of what their constructed market can provide to its participants, particularly when people are apparently randomly banned from participating it as they please.
- steveBK123 2y ago
  Further, from a markets point of view, by managing their market with micro-lockouts of drivers out during projected quiet periods, they are essentially setting a price floor such that riders are paying more than they otherwise might have. Stock markets for example generally have circuit breakers and limit up/down rules that will put in pauses for a stock if there is too much volatility. However they do not institute asymmetric throttling by say restricting half of sellers from selling but allowing buyers orders through.
immibis 2y ago
> I get legislators want uber drivers to earn a living wage, but expecting uber to continue allowing unlimited amount of drivers to be "online", when they have to pay for them is absurd. Uber gets to choose how many drivers to schedule at a given time. Expecting it to be unable to correctly-ish choose this number, when it's 50% of the work every other company has to do, is what's absurd.

by gruez 2y ago

steveBK123 2y ago

If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. They could have also kicked people out for full days, rest of shift, or given an indicator of when they may try again. Something that leaves it more clear they are off and don't linger around to try and get back in. Restaurants/retail will reduce staffing due to demand, but they don't leave people hanging by an on-call thread the way this automated Uber model did. Tends to be more like cutting shifts off early or calling people not to come in. It is not this automated app-driven robo labor optimization. People aren't being told to go outside and maybe they'll get called back in 5 minutes, 1 hour, or 1 day. Agreed a lot of businesses moved people to 32 hour weeks to avoid ACA, which is a different issue.. how's all the on-demand faux contractor workforces healthcare though?

gruez 2y ago
>If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. Most of those drivers were presumably enrolled before that legislation was passed/came into force. Blaming uber for having those drivers seems like a stretch. > They could have also kicked people out for full days, rest of shift, or given an indicator of when they may try again. Something that leaves it more clear they are off and don't linger around to try and get back in. Is this a real concern? This seems like something that sucks for the first few days and then everyone realizes what's the new normal and adapts accordingly. I don't doubt uber could have done better here, but characterizing poor UI as "circumvent the NYC law to try and ensure Uber drivers get a fair minimum wage" is a stretch. It's also unclear how uber benefits from drivers being frustrated at the UI. >Restaurants/retail will reduce staffing due to demand, but they don't leave people hanging by an on-call thread the way this automated Uber model did. Uber driver are not "on call". They can sign off at any time. Sure, they might need the money, but in that respect I don't see how that's any different than 0 hour contracts that some restaurants have. >Agreed a lot of businesses moved people to 32 hour weeks to avoid ACA, which is a different issue.. how's all the on-demand faux contractor workforces healthcare though? The point isn't that being an uber driver is a dream job, it's that contrary to your rhetoric of "Imagine a small restaurant doing similar", small restaurants indeed will do something similar, if given the chance.
- RHSeeger 2y ago
  > I don't doubt uber could have done better here, but characterizing poor UI as "circumvent the NYC law to try and ensure Uber drivers get a fair minimum wage" is a stretch. Honestly, that's _exactly_ what it looks like to me. Law makes it so that they have to pay drivers that are available to drive but aren't actively involved in a fair... so they change the system so that, if they don't have fairs for you you're not considered available to drive. Everything about that reeks of trying to circumvent the law. Now, I don't know that there _is_ a better solution that works with their business model; but the answer to that isn't "cheat", it's "your business model it's sustainable".
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Honestly, that's _exactly_ what it looks like to me. Law makes it so that they have to pay drivers that are available to drive but aren't actively involved in a fair... so they change the system so that, if they don't have fairs for you you're not considered available to drive. Everything about that reeks of trying to circumvent the law. How is this any different than minimum wage laws which are ostensibly enacted to increase worker's salaries, but businesses respond by hiring people for fewer hours? I agree that uber is thwarting legislators' attempt to improve the earnings of uber drivers, but this was the outcome everyone has foresaw, including the legislators. Characterizing it as some cunning chicanery on uber's part is absurd.
    - RHSeeger 2y ago
      > How is this any different than minimum wage laws which are ostensibly enacted to increase worker's salaries, but businesses respond by hiring people for fewer hours? Nobody is hiring more people to counter the laws "to increase worker's salaries", they're hiring fewer workers to counter the laws that require certain benefits (health insurance) for full time workers. That's a totally different issue.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    The actual problem is that it's a stupid law. You effectively have two options. Option one, Uber signs up as many drivers as they have customers during off-peak hours and then if you want to drive only during peak hours to take advantage of surge pricing you can't and if you want a ride then there won't be enough drivers, because they won't sign up any more if they'd have to pay someone for 8 hours to have them only drive for one. Option two, there are that many full-time drivers and then they sign up some additional part-time drivers to satisfy peak demand, but the part-time drivers are part-time and they're not getting paid during off-peak hours. Which one do you want? Notice that there is no one better off under the first option; the people who don't want to work part-time still have the option not to under the second option, the first just prevents them from doing it even if they want to.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. The number of drivers needed at any given time is completely variable. It's obviously a larger number during peak travel periods. Suppose number of drivers needed off-peak is 100 and the number needed at the peak is 500 and they have 300 drivers. They need to sign up another 200 drivers to satisfy the peak demand, but they already have 200 more than they can use off-peak. What would you have them do? They effectively need a large proportion of the drivers to be working part time specifically during peak hours. Moreover, there are many people willing to do that. They're not sitting in their cars idling, they're at home doing chores or other contract work and they only get in their car if the app tells them they can get paid. This is not a problem for the people who are satisfied with it, and why are the people who are unsatisfied with it even doing it? If you don't like driving for Uber, don't do it.
- II2II 2y ago
  > The number of drivers needed at any given time is completely variable. It's obviously a larger number during peak travel periods. That's variable based upon time of day, not completely variable. It is not a new problem either. Take public transit: drivers may hate split shifts, yet they are given well defined shifts that they are paid for. On top of that, a company that operates through an app ought to have the ability to develop software to relatively reliably predict demand. > Moreover, there are many people willing to do that. Willing, or desperate? For example: relatively few people want to be on-call replacement workers. They either do it because they need the money or they do it because they are hoping to get their foot in the door. Those who do it willingly are typically doing so for extra cash and because they don't have any other obligations (e.g. retirees in some fields). Now imagine that an entire company is based upon the concept of replacement workers. That puts Uber closer to the exploitive end of the spectrum than the opportunity end.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > That's variable based upon time of day, not completely variable. It's completely variable. If there is a major sporting event in your city, the demand is going to be much different than it is at the same time of day when there isn't a major sporting event. Demand is affected by weather, public transit disruptions, current events etc. It's not just time of day. > Take public transit: drivers may hate split shifts, yet they are given well defined shifts that they are paid for. Public transit has internal buffers that absorb demand. You have a bus which seats 40 but typically has 7 passengers. If there is a demand spike, this time you have 35 passengers, but this is still less than 40 so you don't need any more drivers. If that happens with Uber, they suddenly need five times as many drivers. > On top of that, a company that operates through an app ought to have the ability to develop software to relatively reliably predict demand. They could certainly predict part of the demand, but then what? You don't know ahead of time what time of day it's going to rain and cause a ton of people who usually ride a bike to want a ride. There is still a high amount of unpredictable variability in the demand. > Willing, or desperate? For example: relatively few people want to be on-call replacement workers. They either do it because they need the money or they do it because they are hoping to get their foot in the door. Let's consider these people then. Their options are to have no job and likely run into serious financial difficulties, take the on-call job to cover some bills while they look for a better job, or take some even worse job than the on-call job, but that might not be worse in a way that has been legislated against, e.g. because it's two hours away and there is no law against having a four hour round trip commute. The only reason they'd take the on-call job is if their other options are worse. But if their other options are worse then taking away the on-call job option isn't helping them. To actually help them you need to give them some options that are better, in which case you still don't have to prohibit the on-call job because then they'd just choose the better alternative once it's available. > Those who do it willingly are typically doing so for extra cash and because they don't have any other obligations (e.g. retirees in some fields). Then why shouldn't those people be able to do it, and get the extra cash? > Now imagine that an entire company is based upon the concept of replacement workers. Suppose Uber was part of Costco but otherwise operated in an identical way. Is that supposed to make any difference?
PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
> If Uber has let so many drivers on the app such that they cannot earn a minimum wage, they should stop aggressively enrolling new drivers. Why? All Uber cares about are the fees it collects, which are dependent on the total number of miles and total number of rides. It has no reason to care if its drivers make minimum wage or not, unless it can be shown that if they cannot, Uber will not have enough drivers. Fortunately for Uber, there is no evidence that this is the case.
- radiator 2y ago
  > It has no reason to care if its drivers make minimum wage or not Is the question "are we breaking any laws" not a reason to care?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    Given the legal record w.r.t Uber, I think its fairly clear that it is not.

Volundr 2y ago

> expecting uber to continue allowing unlimited amount of drivers to be "online", when they have to pay for them is absurd. I don't recall anyone demanding that. Maybe things have changed since then, but back when I worked in restaurants if things were slow I'd be sent home and know when I was expected to be back be that the next day or in time for the dinner rush. I wasn't randomly clocked off for 15-30 minutes, and expected to hang around, then suddenly told I'm back on. In fact we'd call that wage theft, (which is very common in the US). But suddenly for Uber such a thing is acceptable.

gruez 2y ago
>I don't recall anyone demanding that. That's seemingly what OP was demanding, given the displeasure he was expressing at uber for the practice. >but back when I worked in restaurants if things were slow I'd be sent home and know when I was expected to be back be that the next day or in time for the dinner rush. I wasn't randomly clocked off for 15-30 minutes, and expected to hang around, then suddenly told I'm back on. In fact we'd call that wage theft, (which is very common in the US). But suddenly for Uber such a thing is acceptable. It's the difference between employment vs working as a contractor. Cab drivers, who also work as independent contractors. No fare, no pay. >The tight margins of the hack trade can leave cabbies feeling frustrated. “Sometimes, I don’t like it, because I have the potential to lose money,” said M. D. Islam, a cabby from Queens who has been driving for six months. He often earns less than $100 a day, he said; if his cab breaks down, or he can’t find passengers, he may end up in the red. 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...
- Volundr 2y ago
  > That's seemingly what OP was demanding, given the displeasure he was expressing at uber for the practice. From the OP > Uber runs an algorithm which kicks drivers out of the app randomly if demand gets too low, without warning or indication of when they can get back in. It can be minutes or hours. I think the OP makes it very clear that the issue is the lack of communication especially around when they can work next, not that Uber isn't willing to maintain a surge staff during minimal demand.

b112 2y ago

A lot of jurisdictions require 4 hr minimum pay when called in to work. I wonder, would cabs be more competitive of Uber's alternative business model, if Uber had to be fairer? If so, then isn't Uber a sham? And shouldn't market forces see them go? Airbnb used to be cheap... at the start. Then people added insurance, people had to get permits, and so on, just as Hotels, and other do. Now it's not so cheap any more. One of the biggest disruptions is "don't pay your fair share". Or "pay people dirt wages". Companies carve out a new business model, and aren't taxed or forced to pay as incumbents are. Are people against people making a fair wage? Well guess what, you have to pay more for an Uber. And maybe Uber doesn't work as a business model unless it's too expensive. Too bad! Uber has to work in the same ecosystem as everyone else... or it's a farce.

gruez 2y ago
>A lot of jurisdictions require 4 hr minimum pay when called in to work. >I wonder, would cabs be more competitive of Uber's alternative business model, if Uber had to be fairer? None of which applies to cabs, who are also independent contractors. For instance >The tight margins of the hack trade can leave cabbies feeling frustrated. “Sometimes, I don’t like it, because I have the potential to lose money,” said M. D. Islam, a cabby from Queens who has been driving for six months. He often earns less than $100 a day, he said; if his cab breaks down, or he can’t find passengers, he may end up in the red. 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...
steveBK123 2y ago
Re: ABNB People book on this platform thinking it’s vetted somehow. Well in an area I vacation there was a fatal fire at a weekly rental home with unlicensed electrical work, no working smoke detectors and no license to rent the unit (requires a town inspection). Of course the renters had used an app platform that gives them the illusion that these are somehow legal vetted and safe. Instead you can end up in a rental with safety standards well below developing world standards.

uoaei 2y ago

> expecting uber to continue allowing unlimited amount of drivers to be "online", when they have to pay for them is absurd. The market they operate is of their own making, there is no "free market" argument to be made here. What's absurd is the mischaracterization of what their constructed market can provide to its participants, particularly when people are apparently randomly banned from participating it as they please.

steveBK123 2y ago
Further, from a markets point of view, by managing their market with micro-lockouts of drivers out during projected quiet periods, they are essentially setting a price floor such that riders are paying more than they otherwise might have. Stock markets for example generally have circuit breakers and limit up/down rules that will put in pauses for a stock if there is too much volatility. However they do not institute asymmetric throttling by say restricting half of sellers from selling but allowing buyers orders through.

immibis 2y ago

> I get legislators want uber drivers to earn a living wage, but expecting uber to continue allowing unlimited amount of drivers to be "online", when they have to pay for them is absurd. Uber gets to choose how many drivers to schedule at a given time. Expecting it to be unable to correctly-ish choose this number, when it's 50% of the work every other company has to do, is what's absurd.