4 ms·

This makes all the R&D into driverless cars worth it. Driverless cars can't be employees.

by mayneack 11y ago

jkyle 11y ago
I'm not sure the uber contractors would think that's a benefit.
- gegtik 11y ago
  *employees
  - thrillgore 11y ago
    In one state.
josefresco 11y ago
Exactly. This is the equivalent of Netflix mailing DVD's and transitioning to streaming. If Uber can pull it off they'll survive the regulatory assault.
- cehrnrooth 11y ago
  Not necessarily. As other people have pointed out, Uber's business model, margins, and valuation are based on shifting their costs onto their drivers (especially the capital costs of vehicles). Switching to driverless raises the question of who owns the vehicles they'll be using, and if they're the ones owning the vehicles in their fleet that represents a major shift in capital expenses and ongoing maintenance costs.
  - josefresco 11y ago
    Good point about ownership of the vehicles. Maybe it's more of an "insurance" policy in case their regulatory battles go poorly. I think if cities and states had to choose between Uber with people (more jobs) and Uber with autonomous vehicles (less jobs) they would or should pick the former.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > I think if cities and states had to choose between Uber with people (more jobs) and Uber with autonomous vehicles (less jobs) they would or should pick the former. As much as cities and states can regulating employment rules, and taxi rules, they can also regulate rules for use of autonomous vehicles. So, when it comes down to it, they don't have to choose a regulatory regime that makes either of those options viable.
  - crucini 11y ago
    Maybe they can get individuals to buy, maintain and operate the robotic cars. You buy the car and lease it to Uber for 70% of the revenue. Same model as now, minus the "employee" factor.
- pgeorgi 11y ago
  "regulatory assault" is a funny term to apply to the Uber situation where Uber ignores existing regulatory frameworks only to then whine when regulators do what regulators exist for.
  - josefresco 11y ago
    I was being loose, or casual with my wording. I don't believe that Uber is being targeted, however disruption is part of their model, and that normally involves choosing which rules to obey and forcing the rules you do not want to obey, to change.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  How are they going to survive actually having to bear all the liability and maintenance costs that they're currently shoving off onto their employees?
  - josefresco 11y ago
    They probably wouldn't if these were applies globally. Thankfully (for them) each country, state, district etc. has their own sub contractor vs. employee threshold.

This makes all the R&D into driverless cars worth it. Driverless cars can't be employees.

jkyle 11y ago

I'm not sure the uber contractors would think that's a benefit.

gegtik 11y ago
*employees
- thrillgore 11y ago
  In one state.

josefresco 11y ago

Exactly. This is the equivalent of Netflix mailing DVD's and transitioning to streaming. If Uber can pull it off they'll survive the regulatory assault.

cehrnrooth 11y ago
Not necessarily. As other people have pointed out, Uber's business model, margins, and valuation are based on shifting their costs onto their drivers (especially the capital costs of vehicles). Switching to driverless raises the question of who owns the vehicles they'll be using, and if they're the ones owning the vehicles in their fleet that represents a major shift in capital expenses and ongoing maintenance costs.
- josefresco 11y ago
  Good point about ownership of the vehicles. Maybe it's more of an "insurance" policy in case their regulatory battles go poorly. I think if cities and states had to choose between Uber with people (more jobs) and Uber with autonomous vehicles (less jobs) they would or should pick the former.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > I think if cities and states had to choose between Uber with people (more jobs) and Uber with autonomous vehicles (less jobs) they would or should pick the former. As much as cities and states can regulating employment rules, and taxi rules, they can also regulate rules for use of autonomous vehicles. So, when it comes down to it, they don't have to choose a regulatory regime that makes either of those options viable.
- crucini 11y ago
  Maybe they can get individuals to buy, maintain and operate the robotic cars. You buy the car and lease it to Uber for 70% of the revenue. Same model as now, minus the "employee" factor.
pgeorgi 11y ago
"regulatory assault" is a funny term to apply to the Uber situation where Uber ignores existing regulatory frameworks only to then whine when regulators do what regulators exist for.
- josefresco 11y ago
  I was being loose, or casual with my wording. I don't believe that Uber is being targeted, however disruption is part of their model, and that normally involves choosing which rules to obey and forcing the rules you do not want to obey, to change.
s73v3r 11y ago
How are they going to survive actually having to bear all the liability and maintenance costs that they're currently shoving off onto their employees?
- josefresco 11y ago
  They probably wouldn't if these were applies globally. Thankfully (for them) each country, state, district etc. has their own sub contractor vs. employee threshold.