When Their Shifts End, Uber Drivers Set Up Camp in Parking Lots Across the U.S.(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
When Their Shifts End, Uber Drivers Set Up Camp in Parking Lots Across the U.S.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-23/when-their-shifts-end-uber-drivers-set-up-camp-in-parking-lots-across-the-u-s
145 comments
This is why I use Lyft over Uber. It's anecdotal (though remarkably consistent, even accounting for confirmation bias), but when I get in an Uber — which isn't often; I don't even have the app installed on my device, so I'm only getting in one if I'm with someone else who summoned one — I can expect assholery in traffic. And I just don't see that with Lyft drivers, even when I'm riding with a driver who takes fares from both.
It's like there's some sort of un- (or under-) stated thing amongst the Uber drivers, such that fare turnover beats traffic safety.
It's like there's some sort of un- (or under-) stated thing amongst the Uber drivers, such that fare turnover beats traffic safety.
I don't think that Uber is any better than Lyft. So many of these drivers work for both. I have no data to back this up but I believe the cause is shared rides such as Uber Pool and Lyft Line. The low-revenue/high-volume nature seems to encourage these drivers to drive as fast and as long as possible. I don't remember seeing bad driving so much, back before these shared services.
Low-revenue/high-volume isn't a proper characterization of Lyft Line. The driver gets paid the rate for the number of miles driven / minutes elapsed. At least in LA the distance fare is comparable, the time fare is 2/3 the normal rate. But there is a balance, Line rides either end up being the minimum fare, so there's no difference for the driver, or they end up being longer, converting idle time into paying time. Also Lyft counts each pickup as a ride in your metrics, which counts toward driver bonuses.
Also I am very mindful that any report or flagging by riders concerning safety can result in removal from the platform. Other drivers might go balls out but they won't be on the platform for long.
There are some downsides for the rider. Be in the car within 105 seconds of when the driver taps arrive or pay $5. You can't ask the driver to divert or stop at the liquor store. And I've heard women say they won't take Line (to their home/work at least) because if there's a creepy guy in the car that gets dropped off after them, the guy knows where they live/work/hang out.
Also I am very mindful that any report or flagging by riders concerning safety can result in removal from the platform. Other drivers might go balls out but they won't be on the platform for long.
There are some downsides for the rider. Be in the car within 105 seconds of when the driver taps arrive or pay $5. You can't ask the driver to divert or stop at the liquor store. And I've heard women say they won't take Line (to their home/work at least) because if there's a creepy guy in the car that gets dropped off after them, the guy knows where they live/work/hang out.
That's probably a relevant variable I don't have a lot of exposure to: I tend not to use the pool/line fares often.
Lyft is more upfront about tipping too, which is why I prefer to use them now. I have issues with both, but Lyft seems to actually try to give the idea that they care about their "employees" whereas Uber seems to be on a literal crash course to making something work before self-driving cars can take over and they can fire all the humans.
In my experience, and I have driven for both, Lyft actually has been more humane to me in the role of driver. Uber's customer service (remember, drivers pay to use the network) is if you don't like it, you can leave. Lyft on the other hand has taken responsibility for every mistake they have made with me and has fixed it. They have also viewed my feedback about processes and offerings as a gift not a nuisance.
And Lyft's incentives are geared in a way where they give a lot, even up to where it looks to me like a loss on paper, to any driver who is dedicated and is bringing something good to the table.
The bottom line is, driver compensation sucks because people aren't willing to pay what the service is actually worth. They pay $10-$30 a day to Rideshare, and ignore the fact that a new car TCO is 2-3x that. And they get to spend their time doing something else instead of driving. Some people work, some socialize with their friends, some seek entertainment from their devices. And then there are those who avoid the $10,000 DUI.
And Lyft's incentives are geared in a way where they give a lot, even up to where it looks to me like a loss on paper, to any driver who is dedicated and is bringing something good to the table.
The bottom line is, driver compensation sucks because people aren't willing to pay what the service is actually worth. They pay $10-$30 a day to Rideshare, and ignore the fact that a new car TCO is 2-3x that. And they get to spend their time doing something else instead of driving. Some people work, some socialize with their friends, some seek entertainment from their devices. And then there are those who avoid the $10,000 DUI.
Things are "worth" the price that the market will bear. If rides were worth more, at the current supply, then Lyft would charge more.
Why should a new car be valued by market principles but rides not?
To increase price, you must decrease supply.
Why should a new car be valued by market principles but rides not?
To increase price, you must decrease supply.
That's hilarious. Uber and Lyft alike are running on a VC-subsidized business model. Leaving the comparisons of personal transport solutions aside, neither of them are turning a profit.
Doesn't matter. I mean, we can argue about the intrinsic value of a ride, but the only way to know the market value of something is to sell it. Or to buy it, if you're on the other side of the situation.
I'm not saying the value won't change in some years when the VC money dries up and the market shifts. Of course it will. To think otherwise would make me like the taxi medallion owners complaining about their mistaken investments.
Another way to look at it is that buying a car is a bad investment, because it's tough to recover the cost of ownership. Perhaps people buy them for non-business purposes and are driving the price up.
I'm not saying the value won't change in some years when the VC money dries up and the market shifts. Of course it will. To think otherwise would make me like the taxi medallion owners complaining about their mistaken investments.
Another way to look at it is that buying a car is a bad investment, because it's tough to recover the cost of ownership. Perhaps people buy them for non-business purposes and are driving the price up.
Uber drivers are commercial drivers. There's no way around it. They should have a chauffeurs license at minimum and be subject to DOT limits on hours per week and hours per shift and hours between shifts.
I think the long term answer is to copy the rules for aviation, where a Private Pilot Licence is different from a Commercial Pilot Licence, and the rules about what the holders can do are clear and widely publicised. "Uber for planes" would be highly illegal, and everyone involved would get arrested.
Even without regulation, there must be a huge legal risk that Uber's lack of a serious fatigue management system will be found to be negligent. The ways this goes wrong in the trucking industry are very well known.
Even without regulation, there must be a huge legal risk that Uber's lack of a serious fatigue management system will be found to be negligent. The ways this goes wrong in the trucking industry are very well known.
> "Uber for planes" would be highly illegal, and everyone involved would get arrested.
Are you referring to the recent movie "I.T." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.T._(film) where Pierce Brosnan plays the role of a airline company CEO who roles out an app that does for planes what Uber does for cars? He gets wrongfully arrested in the movie, but not for his "Uber for planes", but for something else. The roles in that film didn't square with reality. Brosnan portrayed an ethical family man and company director ignorant about IT, whereas in real life he'd be fiddling his company books, cheating on his wife, and using his business's IT infrastructure to illegally monitor his employees. The antagonist could talk to girls and run a sophisticated surveillance system, but couldn't shrug off a snub by Brosnan's character. None of it was believable. I wouldn't use anything in that film as a reference to real life.
Are you referring to the recent movie "I.T." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.T._(film) where Pierce Brosnan plays the role of a airline company CEO who roles out an app that does for planes what Uber does for cars? He gets wrongfully arrested in the movie, but not for his "Uber for planes", but for something else. The roles in that film didn't square with reality. Brosnan portrayed an ethical family man and company director ignorant about IT, whereas in real life he'd be fiddling his company books, cheating on his wife, and using his business's IT infrastructure to illegally monitor his employees. The antagonist could talk to girls and run a sophisticated surveillance system, but couldn't shrug off a snub by Brosnan's character. None of it was believable. I wouldn't use anything in that film as a reference to real life.
Probably to the real-life rules for non-commercial pilots, that strictly forbid to transport passengers for profit. They can only fairly share the operating costs, meaning if there are 3 "passengers" the pilot has to pay 25% of the cost and can not be paid any compensation for being the pilot, so you always lose money on it (in the US, but I assume rules are similar in many parts of the world).
> "Uber for planes" would be highly illegal, and everyone involved would get arrested.
Unless, of course, it was actually Uber doing it.. then it would suddenly be made legal in 90% of the places it operated and have a blind eye turned to it in the other 10%. I saw a ton of gypsy cab services get shut down in my city before Uber came along.
Unless, of course, it was actually Uber doing it.. then it would suddenly be made legal in 90% of the places it operated and have a blind eye turned to it in the other 10%. I saw a ton of gypsy cab services get shut down in my city before Uber came along.
It's ride sharing, they are not commercial drivers, besides the robots will be driving for us shortly. This is more a story about people needing to resort to Uber to make money and in a city not near their home because even Uber isnt enough money in their home town.
Is it really ride sharing if you aren't sharing a destination with the driver? How is that ride share any different than a cab ride?
I've used uber in SF, NY, and London. It's painfully clear they are a taxi service going from 1 "customer" to another.
I'm sure there are ppl that legit share their ride to work, but I'd love to see the numbers of ride shares vs serial taxi-like behavior
I've used uber in SF, NY, and London. It's painfully clear they are a taxi service going from 1 "customer" to another.
I'm sure there are ppl that legit share their ride to work, but I'd love to see the numbers of ride shares vs serial taxi-like behavior
Legally it's ride sharing and that's all that really matters from a legal, economic or employment standpoint. The fact these people cannot find other jobs is the real problem.
Actually legally it is whatever the law of the land says it is.
Disagree. Drivers are being paid. It's commercial. They are providing transportation to the public on public roads, therefore qualifications of the drivers and fatigue, etc. are matters of public safety.
From the standpoint of the law you are incorrect. Legally it's ride sharing, these people can make their own schedule, no one is forcing them to work 100 hour weeks behind the wheel.
Have their been test cases in the relevant jurisdictions or is this just Uber's interpretation?
The test case has been their business operations for the past 7 years (or long they have been in business). They require no certification, no medallion, nothing from the government to operate.
So you are just repeating Uber's opinion then.
>besides the robots will be driving for us shortly.
Maybe in California. Up here in Canada, "the robots" are still paralyzed by the snowy roads that cover the huge majority of our roadways in the winter. I suspect that this is also true in large parts of Europe.
Maybe in California. Up here in Canada, "the robots" are still paralyzed by the snowy roads that cover the huge majority of our roadways in the winter. I suspect that this is also true in large parts of Europe.
Even a large majority of the US (geographically, not population wise). Any place in the top half of the US which is not on the pacific coast is going to be facing snow and ice for a good portion of the winter.
Living in the Silicon Valley, where the days are always above 50 and mostly sunny, really skews your expectations of what the rest of the country faces for weather.
Living in the Silicon Valley, where the days are always above 50 and mostly sunny, really skews your expectations of what the rest of the country faces for weather.
I heard anecdotally that drivers with ratings below 4.6 have their Uber driver accounts shutdown.
In this instance, how would the rating work for drivers in an UberPool? Does each person's vote count for only 1/n, or is each one a full vote? If it's full votes for all riders in a single UberPool ride, all it probably takes are a couple of mediocre UberPool experiences and the driver is selected out of the driving pool.
In this instance, how would the rating work for drivers in an UberPool? Does each person's vote count for only 1/n, or is each one a full vote? If it's full votes for all riders in a single UberPool ride, all it probably takes are a couple of mediocre UberPool experiences and the driver is selected out of the driving pool.
I thought it was anything below 4, but who knows.
When I have unsafe drivers I aggressively rate them 1 or 2s depending on what it was. I know that it's "mean" to the driver, but I'm being kind to future passengers, pedestrians, and everyone who shares the road.
When I have unsafe drivers I aggressively rate them 1 or 2s depending on what it was. I know that it's "mean" to the driver, but I'm being kind to future passengers, pedestrians, and everyone who shares the road.
I wouldn't believe any assumptions around how Uber ratings affect drivers. In many cities Uber's demand outweighs their pool of available drivers. Its not in their best interest to remove drivers from their platform other than the most egregious cases.
Uber doesn't disclose their exact process, of course, but it appears to be mostly stack ranking. Firing the bottom 10% or whatever ends up meaning around a 4.6 in most markets, but median driver ratings vary by market. The stack rank isn't immediate either, and may have factors such as number of trips driven. But that's basically what's going on. (I don't know specifically how this applies to UberPool ratings)
Being ready to fire workers quickly leads to additional recruiting pressure, workforce churn, and ultimately lowers the quality of service.
I think that's a natural effect of finding something that "works, but not at scale". If you try to have as many drivers at the same driver cost that cab companies have[1], you have to keep digging deeper into the applicant pool for less desirable and more frantic drivers (who realize they need to do a lot of fares to come out ahead).
Uber's use of technology has certainly delivered a better experience per dollar spent, but it still runs into these effects.
[1] cab companies don't pay drivers directly, but there's an "implicit driver cost" that underlies how much they're able to rent the cabs for relative to the revenue drivers pull in
Uber's use of technology has certainly delivered a better experience per dollar spent, but it still runs into these effects.
[1] cab companies don't pay drivers directly, but there's an "implicit driver cost" that underlies how much they're able to rent the cabs for relative to the revenue drivers pull in
There's a reason why Uber has taken almost $9B in funding. I say it's for a legal warchest: innovate without restriction and just deal with legal and ethical "messes" as they occur.
I remember when YouTube was bought by Google, they put aside $1B in a similar fashion to weather any legal troubles coming their way.
[deleted]
A lot of times when Uber comes up and people say that Uber should do more to compensate their drivers. Also, a different person posts that Uber is subsidizing rides to stay afloat. If we combine these two premises then we begin to understand that Uber is probably doing all the subsidizing that they consider reasonable and is burning through investors money to do this and that their actions are STILL not able to provide for a reasonable job.
I think part of the problem is wanting 'driver' to always be a reasonable job, when shift-length limits are also preventing drivers from working the mammoth shifts that made it pay like a reasonable job before. People working 70+ hours to get by were really working something like 2 - 3 low-paying jobs all along, now they have to be different jobs.
I think the problem is the idea that you should have to work 70+ hours a week just to afford the necessities of life. It's not healthy or sustainable over the long term.
I don't think you can solve that problem. In the article, there's mention that the drivers don't seem unhappy about their job, just tired.
I think if you give people the option to work 70+ hour weeks to make a little extra money, there's always going to be a minority of people that will
I think if you give people the option to work 70+ hour weeks to make a little extra money, there's always going to be a minority of people that will
Who's to say what is necessary to anyone?
This isn't right. I know "drivers can choose," and nobody is forcing these people to live and work like this. It still feels wrong. One driver mentioned in the article leased his car from Uber and sleeps in it because it's the only way he can make enough to afford the payments. Seems like indentured servitude to me. Uber owes its drivers more.
The "drivers can choose" argument is important because it shows that for at least one driver it is genuinely preferable to sleep in his car and work 70 hours a week than do anything else. Clearly, drivers are facing unemployment, poverty, or working conditions that are even worse.
It would be very easy to regulate the hell out of Uber and turn the unicorn into a donkey. However, that wouldn't improve the conditions that those in the economic class of drivers are subject to, it would just make them less visible. Fixing the Uber problem without providing any alternative employment options is a superficial placebo to make the wealthy feel more comfortable, because it doesn't correct any of the underlying economic problems. Those drivers will still exist, they'll just be pushed into agriculture, sweatshops, and dingy housing projects; hidden places, where nobody else has to look at them again.
There's a very good article called The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics[0] which states that "when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it", and "if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster." This seems to be the case with Uber, where they make money from a social and economic problem where there's an oversupply of unskilled labour, and thus get blamed for the working conditions that were already a reality for so many hidden and unnoticed people, even if they incrementally improve those conditions.
This is not a call to give Uber free rein, but rather to consider drivers as more or less rational human beings capable of making their own choices, and to consider driver wellbeing in that light.
[0] http://web.archive.org/web/20160806191858/https://blog.jaibo...
It would be very easy to regulate the hell out of Uber and turn the unicorn into a donkey. However, that wouldn't improve the conditions that those in the economic class of drivers are subject to, it would just make them less visible. Fixing the Uber problem without providing any alternative employment options is a superficial placebo to make the wealthy feel more comfortable, because it doesn't correct any of the underlying economic problems. Those drivers will still exist, they'll just be pushed into agriculture, sweatshops, and dingy housing projects; hidden places, where nobody else has to look at them again.
There's a very good article called The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics[0] which states that "when you observe or interact with a problem in any way, you can be blamed for it", and "if you interact with a problem and benefit from it, you are a complete monster." This seems to be the case with Uber, where they make money from a social and economic problem where there's an oversupply of unskilled labour, and thus get blamed for the working conditions that were already a reality for so many hidden and unnoticed people, even if they incrementally improve those conditions.
This is not a call to give Uber free rein, but rather to consider drivers as more or less rational human beings capable of making their own choices, and to consider driver wellbeing in that light.
[0] http://web.archive.org/web/20160806191858/https://blog.jaibo...
consider drivers as more or less rational human beings capable of making their own choices
Why? Behavioral economics shows us that many, perhaps most people have huge cognitive biases and make irrational choices. If this wasn't so then scamming people wouldn't be as profitable as it historically has been. To quote PT Barnum 'there's a sucker born every minute'; and while I don't feel like digging up statistics right now, there's tons of evidence that a significant proportion of the population is clueless.
Why? Behavioral economics shows us that many, perhaps most people have huge cognitive biases and make irrational choices. If this wasn't so then scamming people wouldn't be as profitable as it historically has been. To quote PT Barnum 'there's a sucker born every minute'; and while I don't feel like digging up statistics right now, there's tons of evidence that a significant proportion of the population is clueless.
Right, nobody makes totally optimal decisions all the time, but I wasn't comparing drivers to an inhuman standard of rationality. Perhaps it would be clearer to say that drivers aren't necessarily less rational than anyone else, and that includes the people calling for a limit on hours worked.
> It would be very easy to regulate the hell out of Uber and turn the unicorn into a donkey. However, that wouldn't improve the conditions that those in the economic class of drivers are subject to
It's a bit of a strawman to use the hyperbole; plenty of industries are regulated, not regulated "the hell out of", and very profitable too. Also, I disagree with the second statement; labor regulations have a long history of helping workers and still do. They enjoy a 40 hour workweek, overtime, safe working conditions, protection for collective bargaining and much more.
It's the places where these things are absent, such as Uber and their non-employees, where people suffer more. Of course, anything can be taken too far, but unless workers have real power and leverage, they will be taken advantage of.
It may sound like economics, but it's not coincidence that everything the right wing promote strengthens business and/or weakens labor. The economic rationalizations are post-hoc talking points.
It's a bit of a strawman to use the hyperbole; plenty of industries are regulated, not regulated "the hell out of", and very profitable too. Also, I disagree with the second statement; labor regulations have a long history of helping workers and still do. They enjoy a 40 hour workweek, overtime, safe working conditions, protection for collective bargaining and much more.
It's the places where these things are absent, such as Uber and their non-employees, where people suffer more. Of course, anything can be taken too far, but unless workers have real power and leverage, they will be taken advantage of.
It may sound like economics, but it's not coincidence that everything the right wing promote strengthens business and/or weakens labor. The economic rationalizations are post-hoc talking points.
I don't think it's hyperbole. If the reason Uber gets regulated is because it makes the rich feel uncomfortable sitting near poor people, rather than because drivers themselves demand change and back their demands up with industrial action or public outcry, then the created regulations will align with the needs of the rich and not the poor. In particular, you might see artificially strict selection criteria for drivers, preventing the poorest from even having the option of driving for Uber and raising the price of the service such that only the rich can afford it, or you might see the return of the awful medallion systems.
Notably, the profiled drivers themselves weren't demanding changes: that was being done by a paid lobbyist from a group that doesn't seem to be affiliated with them.
Equally notably, while Uber may be a little exploitative, it's nothing compared to 25 hours a week rostered at random times throughout the week for a hair short of the absolute minimum wage. Taking down Uber while leaving far worse alternatives intact removes an escape hatch for the most exploited workers of all.
Notably, the profiled drivers themselves weren't demanding changes: that was being done by a paid lobbyist from a group that doesn't seem to be affiliated with them.
Equally notably, while Uber may be a little exploitative, it's nothing compared to 25 hours a week rostered at random times throughout the week for a hair short of the absolute minimum wage. Taking down Uber while leaving far worse alternatives intact removes an escape hatch for the most exploited workers of all.
> regulate the hell out of Uber and turn the unicorn into a donkey
These are the words used to describe a hypothetical situation of your own creation. It seems hard to escape the term "hyperbole".
These are the words used to describe a hypothetical situation of your own creation. It seems hard to escape the term "hyperbole".
Turning Uber into a glorified taxi company, compliant with all existing taxi legislation in every jurisdiction worldwide and employing full-time employees with fixed schedules, would either kill it or strip its value so severely as to make it a laughing stock.
I have no doubt that heavy-handed regulation could bring such a change. Commenters here and on other submissions seem to complain that such regulation doesn't exist, in particular that Uber doesn't employ full time workers.
Maybe I'm missing something. Help me understand what the hyperbolic part is.
I have no doubt that heavy-handed regulation could bring such a change. Commenters here and on other submissions seem to complain that such regulation doesn't exist, in particular that Uber doesn't employ full time workers.
Maybe I'm missing something. Help me understand what the hyperbolic part is.
But you just made up that scenario, and its consequences.
Also, each post seems to contain more hyperbolic phrases. I think they are obvious enough that I'm not getting into the business of listing them.
Also, each post seems to contain more hyperbolic phrases. I think they are obvious enough that I'm not getting into the business of listing them.
I'm not sure I agree. My idea of "fixing the Uber problem" is increasing the payout to drivers so they can afford a hotel room at the end of a 14 hour shift. This will directly improve the conditions of Uber drivers, at least.
This will do one of three things:
1. increase Uber's already sizable losses, causing the business to fail
2. increase the cost of a fare, leading to fewer rides and forcing drivers to find other employment
3. increase the cost of a fare, but have little impact on rider numbers because fares were already too low, making everyone happy
If it's option 3, then that's great. But if that's the case, why did Uber originally lower fares?
EDIT: should probably add that I support a UBI to solve this. I'm not suggesting that sleeping in your car after a 14 hour shift is good, or right.
1. increase Uber's already sizable losses, causing the business to fail
2. increase the cost of a fare, leading to fewer rides and forcing drivers to find other employment
3. increase the cost of a fare, but have little impact on rider numbers because fares were already too low, making everyone happy
If it's option 3, then that's great. But if that's the case, why did Uber originally lower fares?
EDIT: should probably add that I support a UBI to solve this. I'm not suggesting that sleeping in your car after a 14 hour shift is good, or right.
It seems to me that if Uber is unable to pay its drivers a living wage, they don't actually have a sustainable business model. They have a business model that relies on regulatory arbitrage (avoiding minimum wage or other employee-protection laws by skirting the Independent Contractor line as much as feasible), externalized costs (letting the government pay for things like food stamps and housing assistance), and good old fashioned exploitation of the working class.
I mean, I understand that uber started because the taxi market was protectionist. But on the other hand, do taxi drivers have better pay and a better union? Often, yes. There may be a middle ground here.
(* note that this argument applies to a lot of the gig-economy jobs out there, including lyft, doordash, and so on, not just Uber)
I mean, I understand that uber started because the taxi market was protectionist. But on the other hand, do taxi drivers have better pay and a better union? Often, yes. There may be a middle ground here.
(* note that this argument applies to a lot of the gig-economy jobs out there, including lyft, doordash, and so on, not just Uber)
The article gave pay as either $15/h or $19/h before expenses, and cited expenses as being roughly a quarter of pay. Elsewhere in the article, a driver's pay is given as $12/h after expenses, which is consistent with the other numbers.
Is that a livable wage? I'm not sure, but it's higher than minimum wage. Does it make Uber sustainable? I'm not sure, but it arguably makes it more sustainable than Walmart.
Is that a livable wage? I'm not sure, but it's higher than minimum wage. Does it make Uber sustainable? I'm not sure, but it arguably makes it more sustainable than Walmart.
> It seems to me that if Uber is unable to pay its drivers a living wage, they don't actually have a sustainable business model.
Why does everything need to pay a living wage? Uber driving is so easy that there must be a sizeable population of people that are willing to do it for less than a 'living wage' (retirees, students, housewives who want to get out of the house once, unemployed people between jobhunting).
I do it myself a few times a week just because I like driving, even though it pays literally 8x less than my day job.
Why does everything need to pay a living wage? Uber driving is so easy that there must be a sizeable population of people that are willing to do it for less than a 'living wage' (retirees, students, housewives who want to get out of the house once, unemployed people between jobhunting).
I do it myself a few times a week just because I like driving, even though it pays literally 8x less than my day job.
We allow our 14 year old son to use Uber all of the time for our convenience/his independence but we used Uber for the first time last weekend during a "staycation". Out of the 6 drivers we had, 4 of them said they do it for a little extra spending money or to break the monotony of their day job. One of the drivers was a manager at Verizon's corporate office. When I was single and if I had enjoyed driving and wanted to kill some time, I could have seen myself being an Uber driver occasionally.
I taught fitness classes a few times a week for years part time because I enjoyed it. It definitely wasn't for the money.
I taught fitness classes a few times a week for years part time because I enjoyed it. It definitely wasn't for the money.
> increase Uber's already sizable losses, causing the business to fail
Or they will need to adjust and find another way, like all businesses do. Or they will fail and someone else will find a better way. That's what the free market is about.
It's an old trope that if you increase costs on a business, it's passed along to customers or someone else. That's not how economics works; businesses have many options, they aren't locked into their way of doing things (again, that 'free market').
One question I always have is, why should I care if Uber succeeds or fails? They openly disdain caring about anyone else, including their drivers and the laws of the communities where they operate. I care about their workers, but what does Uber itself matter to me?
Or they will need to adjust and find another way, like all businesses do. Or they will fail and someone else will find a better way. That's what the free market is about.
It's an old trope that if you increase costs on a business, it's passed along to customers or someone else. That's not how economics works; businesses have many options, they aren't locked into their way of doing things (again, that 'free market').
One question I always have is, why should I care if Uber succeeds or fails? They openly disdain caring about anyone else, including their drivers and the laws of the communities where they operate. I care about their workers, but what does Uber itself matter to me?
> If it's option 3, then that's great. But if that's the case, why did Uber originally lower fares?
Subsidize with investor money to try to drive competitors out of business?
Subsidize with investor money to try to drive competitors out of business?
If you want to help these drivers I think they'd prefer access to an overnight parking lot and a community-center shower for $10 than a sleezy hotel for $100.
If you really came through with the extra pay I think they still sleep in their cars and bank the difference.
If you really came through with the extra pay I think they still sleep in their cars and bank the difference.
> One driver mentioned in the article leased his car from Uber and sleeps in it because it's the only way he can make enough to afford the payments.
You obviously didn't read the whole article (although the author clearly tried to bury this at the end) - quote from the same driver:
“I signed up for this because I am my boss. I kind of own the business. I have the freedom and that’s a beautiful thing,”
and
“These labor advocates, they don’t know what it’s like to be a driver. They think we’re not being treated right, but I’m happy. If I didn’t like it, I would do something else.”
You obviously didn't read the whole article (although the author clearly tried to bury this at the end) - quote from the same driver:
“I signed up for this because I am my boss. I kind of own the business. I have the freedom and that’s a beautiful thing,”
and
“These labor advocates, they don’t know what it’s like to be a driver. They think we’re not being treated right, but I’m happy. If I didn’t like it, I would do something else.”
This jibes with my experience. Throwaway because reasons and personal.
I was doing work for <large, billion dollar tech company everyone knows> as an hourly contractor. I left to do some "sharing economy" stuff that, although is not the same as doing rideshares for Uber, it's something that's very, very similar. It involves driving. The changes that it brought were:
- Not having to do work that, at the end of the day, is the opposite of fulfilling
- Not having to answer for dumb, avoidable mistakes when the responsibility inevitably diffuses throughout the whole team
- Not having to deal with the workplace sociopaths who cause them
- Not being subjected to the whims of a mercurial, micromanaging supervisor
- Not having the stress of all these things creep into my life outside work
The downside to leaving and opting for what I'm doing now is basically this: big pay cut. I'm not a SV rockstar and have no nest egg, but this is paying for groceries and rent for the time being. I can say unequivocally that in regards to all these factors that people pretend to care about, I'm far more well off than I would have been at my former workplace, and yet if I had stayed, no one would have batted an eye and feigned to sympathize with the plight that resulted from those circumstances, because it was a "real" job.
I honestly could not give a relatable damn about the "I have my own schedule" aspects. I'm very big on planning, and the truth is that I'm able to make plans that stick even better than when I was at <the company>. By far the most important part is that when I'm not driving, I'm able to do things in my offtime that keep me sharp.
Before leaving, the idea that I could, say, build up my skills in my time off until something better comes along, was totally out of the question. I'd compare trying to stave off the braindamage of dealing with daily workplace nonsense to be similar to trying to maintain a healthy physique so that you're fit enough to enjoy your daily jog, all while your paycheck somehow relies on subjecting your body to junk food, soda, and cigarettes.
Now, I've got side projects and interesting avenues of research to explore.
I was doing work for <large, billion dollar tech company everyone knows> as an hourly contractor. I left to do some "sharing economy" stuff that, although is not the same as doing rideshares for Uber, it's something that's very, very similar. It involves driving. The changes that it brought were:
- Not having to do work that, at the end of the day, is the opposite of fulfilling
- Not having to answer for dumb, avoidable mistakes when the responsibility inevitably diffuses throughout the whole team
- Not having to deal with the workplace sociopaths who cause them
- Not being subjected to the whims of a mercurial, micromanaging supervisor
- Not having the stress of all these things creep into my life outside work
The downside to leaving and opting for what I'm doing now is basically this: big pay cut. I'm not a SV rockstar and have no nest egg, but this is paying for groceries and rent for the time being. I can say unequivocally that in regards to all these factors that people pretend to care about, I'm far more well off than I would have been at my former workplace, and yet if I had stayed, no one would have batted an eye and feigned to sympathize with the plight that resulted from those circumstances, because it was a "real" job.
I honestly could not give a relatable damn about the "I have my own schedule" aspects. I'm very big on planning, and the truth is that I'm able to make plans that stick even better than when I was at <the company>. By far the most important part is that when I'm not driving, I'm able to do things in my offtime that keep me sharp.
Before leaving, the idea that I could, say, build up my skills in my time off until something better comes along, was totally out of the question. I'd compare trying to stave off the braindamage of dealing with daily workplace nonsense to be similar to trying to maintain a healthy physique so that you're fit enough to enjoy your daily jog, all while your paycheck somehow relies on subjecting your body to junk food, soda, and cigarettes.
Now, I've got side projects and interesting avenues of research to explore.
> Uber owes its drivers more.
Why? Not trying to be snarky; why do they owe their drivers anything but incentive to work for them (which seems sufficient, or we wouldn't even be having this conversation int he first place).
Expecting companies to be morally upstanding is silly and a modern invention by the right. The right way to solve this is now by complaining about what Uber "owes" its drivers but in legislation. But we don't want to legislate businesses, we want to stay "nimble" and "flexible", so this is what we get as a result. Don't complain about lying in the bed we've made.
Why? Not trying to be snarky; why do they owe their drivers anything but incentive to work for them (which seems sufficient, or we wouldn't even be having this conversation int he first place).
Expecting companies to be morally upstanding is silly and a modern invention by the right. The right way to solve this is now by complaining about what Uber "owes" its drivers but in legislation. But we don't want to legislate businesses, we want to stay "nimble" and "flexible", so this is what we get as a result. Don't complain about lying in the bed we've made.
Not trying to be snarky; why do they owe their drivers anything but incentive to work for them?
Because karma is bitch, and history bites back.
And if Uber doesn't step up to the plate, and start doing what's not only right for its drivers, but (by any common-sense analysis) also right for its own balance sheets in the long term (as opposed to what appears to be right in the short-term for its megalomaniacal expansion plans)-- that is, make driving a sustainable profession to be in, and not just a "well as long as times aren't so great, let's see how long we can get away with screwing these people" (as appears to be their current motto) profession -- then soon enough, it's going to bite back on them -- hard.
Because karma is bitch, and history bites back.
And if Uber doesn't step up to the plate, and start doing what's not only right for its drivers, but (by any common-sense analysis) also right for its own balance sheets in the long term (as opposed to what appears to be right in the short-term for its megalomaniacal expansion plans)-- that is, make driving a sustainable profession to be in, and not just a "well as long as times aren't so great, let's see how long we can get away with screwing these people" (as appears to be their current motto) profession -- then soon enough, it's going to bite back on them -- hard.
I think that this would essentially mean that Uber has to be a shrewder lender. Uber must know how much drivers usually make, and when a car payment would make it difficult to live, especially based on region. The solution to Uber being a bad lender and encouraging this "perception of indentured servitude" is to disallow some people who already have money problems or are buying too expensive of a car from participating.
Which is an okay decision for them to make. But it does feel like they're taking some nanny-responsibilty for people who ought to be able to make their own financial decision? And they would absolutely be disqualifying some responsible people who could have made it work.
Which is an okay decision for them to make. But it does feel like they're taking some nanny-responsibilty for people who ought to be able to make their own financial decision? And they would absolutely be disqualifying some responsible people who could have made it work.
What does "times aren't so great" mean?
The state of the economy (and life in general) for people who aren't tech workers, these days.
Based on what metrics?
Probably increasing wealth inequality and declining inflation-adjusted wages at the lowest income range.
http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm
http://www.oecd.org/social/inequality.htm
Seems mixed at worst, improving mildly at best, hardly the bleak picture painted above: https://data.oecd.org/united-states.htm
> Expecting companies to be morally upstanding is silly and a modern invention
No, it is accepting that a social group is somehow free of all moral and ethical obligations by virtue of calling itself a "business" that is a silly modern invention.
Humans have are obligated to be morally upstanding. That obligation does not evaporate when we get together in a group, or when we file a business license to make that group "official".
No, it is accepting that a social group is somehow free of all moral and ethical obligations by virtue of calling itself a "business" that is a silly modern invention.
Humans have are obligated to be morally upstanding. That obligation does not evaporate when we get together in a group, or when we file a business license to make that group "official".
> why do they owe their drivers anything but incentive to work for them
I'd say they may owe it to themselves. Press like this demoralizes employees, dissuades potential customers and hints at the presence of political capital for the taking. Whether those costs and risks are worth it is a business decision, of course, but public perception isn't a non-issue.
I'd say they may owe it to themselves. Press like this demoralizes employees, dissuades potential customers and hints at the presence of political capital for the taking. Whether those costs and risks are worth it is a business decision, of course, but public perception isn't a non-issue.
> why do they owe their drivers anything but incentive to work for them (which seems sufficient, or we wouldn't even be having this conversation int he first place).
History is pretty clear on this point: Without protection, workers are at too great a disadvantage when negotiating with large businesses. Look at working conditions before unions became powerful and laws and regulations were passed - they were brutal and wrong.
History is pretty clear on this point: Without protection, workers are at too great a disadvantage when negotiating with large businesses. Look at working conditions before unions became powerful and laws and regulations were passed - they were brutal and wrong.
Nahh. The agency the corps hired, the Pinkertons, had full rights to murder people for not doing their job! I mean, this is laissez faire capitalism - of course the ones with the money have rights over other humans! /s
Yeah, summed up libertarian beliefs and their logical conclusion in a nutshell.
Yeah, summed up libertarian beliefs and their logical conclusion in a nutshell.
I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a
king of infinite space--were it not that I have bad dreams.
It's the bad dreams that always get you.
It's the bad dreams that always get you.
You're making a case for government action, not coroporate. (I also happen to agree with you)
The right way to solve this is not via legislation, nor it is to expect Uber to be "morally upstanding"
Corporations are amoral, always have been, always will be.
The right way to solve this for people to stop using Uber, stop expecting the ultra low rates, just stop
The way to force morality upon corporations is for the CONSUMERS to be moral, and stop using the products and services of corporations that have policies they disagree with.
I love it when i hear people bitch about how terrible uber treats its drivers but continue to use them as their primary mode of transportation. THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
As as example, I dislike Walmart, I have not stepped foot in a Walmart store in more than a decade.
If more people would vote with their wallet companies would change their policies, instead they look to government to use violence for force companies to change because anything else would inconvenience them.
it is the lazy way out.
Corporations are amoral, always have been, always will be.
The right way to solve this for people to stop using Uber, stop expecting the ultra low rates, just stop
The way to force morality upon corporations is for the CONSUMERS to be moral, and stop using the products and services of corporations that have policies they disagree with.
I love it when i hear people bitch about how terrible uber treats its drivers but continue to use them as their primary mode of transportation. THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
As as example, I dislike Walmart, I have not stepped foot in a Walmart store in more than a decade.
If more people would vote with their wallet companies would change their policies, instead they look to government to use violence for force companies to change because anything else would inconvenience them.
it is the lazy way out.
> Corporations are amoral, always have been, always will be.
That's not true; all corporations make moral choices, probably even Uber.
> The right way to solve this is not via legislation
What's wrong with legislation? It's knee-jerk to reject it, but I like the democratic way of solving problems.
> The way to force morality upon corporations is for the CONSUMERS to be moral
Why is millions of individuals all making a moral choice more likely than one company doing it? How often does this work? The 'free market' assumes people will act in their own interests; where that invisible hand fails to deliver, such as situations like this one, we use laws and regulations to correct the situation.
That's not true; all corporations make moral choices, probably even Uber.
> The right way to solve this is not via legislation
What's wrong with legislation? It's knee-jerk to reject it, but I like the democratic way of solving problems.
> The way to force morality upon corporations is for the CONSUMERS to be moral
Why is millions of individuals all making a moral choice more likely than one company doing it? How often does this work? The 'free market' assumes people will act in their own interests; where that invisible hand fails to deliver, such as situations like this one, we use laws and regulations to correct the situation.
>That's not true; all corporations make moral choices, probably even Uber.
Morality is a human construct, Corporations are not people as such can not have Morality.
People make moral choices.
>>What's wrong with legislation? It's knee-jerk to reject it, but I like the democratic way of solving problems.
There is soo much wrong here.
First off, legislation often makes situation worse, and rarely improves things. After all Uber is a direct reaction to regulation of Taxi's, People wanted a less regulation more convenient service for their transportation needs, Regulation of Uber will just result in something else as people attempt to get out from under the government thumb.
Further the call for regulation is a itself a knee jerk emotional reaction to a perceived injustice.
Finally I do not like the "democratic way". I believe in individuality, not collectivism, I do not believe 51% of the population gets to dictate what the other 49% do or cant do.
>The 'free market' assumes people will act in their own interests; where that invisible hand fails to deliver,
I do not believe it is failing to deliver, clearly the people the drive for Uber believe driving for Uber is better than the other options they have, better than other jobs that are open to them. Simple because you do not like their choice or because you perceive it as "unfair" does not mean the people are not acting in their own interests. Shitty choices are still choices
Where laws and regulation should come into play is for Fraud, false advertisement, and contract violations. All of which Uber has been accused of and it should be investigated.
I also believe we should have strong Truth in Advertising laws to prevent companies like Uber from inflating income numbers, or getting people to sign terrible leasing programs like the ones Uber has. This would be good use of government regulation
Requiring all kind of Employment regulations and other types of regulation people call for is not.
>we use laws and regulations to correct the situation.
We should not, nor is it effect
Law and regulations should only be there to prevent direct physical harm, theft and fraud. Nothing else. They should not protect people from their own stupidity, they should not attempt to make the world subjectivity "fair" which is impossible as every person has a different definition of what is "fair"
The only proper role of government is to ensure people are honestly transacting with each free from coercive threats of violence, or actual violence between persons.
Beyond that any action by government ceases to be defensive in nature and becomes Aggressive and is IMO unethical
Morality is a human construct, Corporations are not people as such can not have Morality.
People make moral choices.
>>What's wrong with legislation? It's knee-jerk to reject it, but I like the democratic way of solving problems.
There is soo much wrong here.
First off, legislation often makes situation worse, and rarely improves things. After all Uber is a direct reaction to regulation of Taxi's, People wanted a less regulation more convenient service for their transportation needs, Regulation of Uber will just result in something else as people attempt to get out from under the government thumb.
Further the call for regulation is a itself a knee jerk emotional reaction to a perceived injustice.
Finally I do not like the "democratic way". I believe in individuality, not collectivism, I do not believe 51% of the population gets to dictate what the other 49% do or cant do.
>The 'free market' assumes people will act in their own interests; where that invisible hand fails to deliver,
I do not believe it is failing to deliver, clearly the people the drive for Uber believe driving for Uber is better than the other options they have, better than other jobs that are open to them. Simple because you do not like their choice or because you perceive it as "unfair" does not mean the people are not acting in their own interests. Shitty choices are still choices
Where laws and regulation should come into play is for Fraud, false advertisement, and contract violations. All of which Uber has been accused of and it should be investigated.
I also believe we should have strong Truth in Advertising laws to prevent companies like Uber from inflating income numbers, or getting people to sign terrible leasing programs like the ones Uber has. This would be good use of government regulation
Requiring all kind of Employment regulations and other types of regulation people call for is not.
>we use laws and regulations to correct the situation.
We should not, nor is it effect
Law and regulations should only be there to prevent direct physical harm, theft and fraud. Nothing else. They should not protect people from their own stupidity, they should not attempt to make the world subjectivity "fair" which is impossible as every person has a different definition of what is "fair"
The only proper role of government is to ensure people are honestly transacting with each free from coercive threats of violence, or actual violence between persons.
Beyond that any action by government ceases to be defensive in nature and becomes Aggressive and is IMO unethical
There are many philosophical principles here, but not much that seems related to the reality of people, businesses, or governments. I'll just say this:
Theory is a useful servant but a bad master, liable to produce orthodox defenders of every variety of the faith.
- Harry Guntrip (attributed)
Theory is a useful servant but a bad master, liable to produce orthodox defenders of every variety of the faith.
- Harry Guntrip (attributed)
Important principles may, and must, be inflexible.
-- Abraham Lincoln
Government should be based on principles...
Government should be based on principles...
They should however have a responsibility to ensure drivers are driving responsibly, that they aren't sleep deprived.
Perhaps legislation will catch up here, forcing max hours and making Uber's car leasing model unsustainable. By the time it does however, the cars may be self driving in many cities anyway.
Perhaps legislation will catch up here, forcing max hours and making Uber's car leasing model unsustainable. By the time it does however, the cars may be self driving in many cities anyway.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Uber shown an unwillingness to follow regulations that it finds inconvenient?
The solution seems like a combinations of regulation, increased enforcement, and heavy penalties.
The solution seems like a combinations of regulation, increased enforcement, and heavy penalties.
Very true, but I do see a difference between breaking laws that simply are out of date, and breaking laws which endanger public safety. I'd like to think that judges have some give and take with these things.
[deleted]
Well, some states and cities and drivers have also made legal arguments that Uber owes its drivers more, but they don't seem to be winning (yet?).
Why is it not right for drivers, but perfectly fine for migrant farm workers?
Perhaps society owes these people more, but not Uber.
Perhaps society owes these people more, but not Uber.
Since so-called "migrant farm workers" tend to be there illegally, what society owes them is a hearty punishment followed by a deportation.
Or if you're talking about the legal migrant farm workers, then what society owes them is the deportation of the illegals, so that they no longer have to compete on price with an unlimited number of people who shouldn't be there.
It's no surprise that unenforced immigration laws plus an open border to a third-world country drives down unskilled labour prices.
Heck, once we get rid of the illegals we may find that Uber prices go up too. The US doesn't really have an oversupply of unskilled labour.
Or if you're talking about the legal migrant farm workers, then what society owes them is the deportation of the illegals, so that they no longer have to compete on price with an unlimited number of people who shouldn't be there.
It's no surprise that unenforced immigration laws plus an open border to a third-world country drives down unskilled labour prices.
Heck, once we get rid of the illegals we may find that Uber prices go up too. The US doesn't really have an oversupply of unskilled labour.
I'll quote the end of the article:
“This job is not for everyone. Don’t get it twisted,” he said. “These labor advocates, they don’t know what it’s like to be a driver. They think we’re not being treated right, but I’m happy. If I didn’t like it, I would do something else.”
“This job is not for everyone. Don’t get it twisted,” he said. “These labor advocates, they don’t know what it’s like to be a driver. They think we’re not being treated right, but I’m happy. If I didn’t like it, I would do something else.”
A modern day example of Stockholm Syndrome?
Nope, you totally missed the pure wisdom in the driver's quote. His point is that academics in ivory towers who make policy decisions are so far removed from his reality, that they are ill-equipped to make appropriate policy decisions on his behalf. He's asking labor advocates to engage with him, rather than hand down a potentially disastrous policy decision.
Government drones could really learn a thing or two from that guy.
Government drones could really learn a thing or two from that guy.
Have you ever read about the commercial freight industry? Ever heard of truck stops?
Human freight is a bit different, neh?
The idea that my driver is overnighting in his/her car is not appealing to me as a rider. Does Uber not care about their image?
Next time I Uber/Lyft (rare, usually just airport shuttle) I'm going to ask about that.
The idea that my driver is overnighting in his/her car is not appealing to me as a rider. Does Uber not care about their image?
Next time I Uber/Lyft (rare, usually just airport shuttle) I'm going to ask about that.
[deleted]
If someone's choosing that then it means the alternative is even worse. I don't see how you can blame Uber for that.
I wonder if it would make sense in some cities to set-up "internet café" or capsule hotel-like accommodations[1]. Dense urban areas in other countries have these "overflow" spaces which diverged somewhat from their original design have come to serve either laborers, workers from other cities as well as people stranded by train schedules.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_cafe_refugee
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_cafe_refugee
I'm picturing something like an "Uber stop" somewhat similar to a truck-stop... combine a gas-station and restaurant with some of those Japanese "capsule hotel" sleeping pods[1], add wifi and maybe even a few coin-op washing machines / dryers.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsule_hotel
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsule_hotel
I honestly don't know why the US doesn't have these capsule hotels. I can see so many upsides and very few downsides.
"But the homeless might sleep in them". Better there than on the streets, no?
"But the homeless might sleep in them". Better there than on the streets, no?
Cheap short-term (nightly to weekly) housing used to be all over the United States in the form of dormitories (YMCA was huge), SROs (single room occupancy), cage hotels, flophouses, and boarding houses. Because of zoning and building code changes this kind of housing essentially stopped being built after WWII. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flophouse#Cage_hotels_in_the_U...
Even Hong Kong which is incredibly dense resists this.
They are mainly found in Japan and I've seen a few in China and Singapore.
They range from bad to almost wellness/SPA centers but usually are at least decent, convenient and good value for money.
They are mainly found in Japan and I've seen a few in China and Singapore.
They range from bad to almost wellness/SPA centers but usually are at least decent, convenient and good value for money.
And importantly, proper sanitation facilities.
It probably wouldn't hurt to have those places as a fallback in case someone really needs them. At the same time, it seems like a bad idea to expect people to need them on a regular basis.
I think it would make more sense for cities to mandate that workers be paid a livable wage for the area, rather than setting up and endorsing underclass-level living arrangements.
In the Case of some of these Uber drivers, they are kind of arbitraging costs. They live in Sacto but work in SF. But yeah, I'd support a tiered living wage (more for over 25yo, less for younger adults to give them a way to get into the labor force).
And this is with heavy Uber subsidies... if Uber manages to make a profit off of market rate while still paying their fixed costs (big if), it's going to be even worse for drivers.
They just have to stay afloat until they can cut out the drivers entirely.
> The company proudly proclaims that the share of drivers who work less than 10 hours a week has climbed to more than 60 percent
I'm very interested in these kinds of stats. I'd imagine this is like any other distribution - long, long tailed; with lots of drivers who have driven once, twice, or what have you. Give me the stats on heavy drivers. What fraction of drivers work > 40 hours a week? What fraction of miles driven are driven by heavy drivers? What fraction of <10 hour a week drivers have other jobs? How many hours a week does an Uber driver without another job drive on average?
The company is giving us just the slice that looks good. I'm sure if you started diving into these questions, it wouldn't be pretty.
I'm very interested in these kinds of stats. I'd imagine this is like any other distribution - long, long tailed; with lots of drivers who have driven once, twice, or what have you. Give me the stats on heavy drivers. What fraction of drivers work > 40 hours a week? What fraction of miles driven are driven by heavy drivers? What fraction of <10 hour a week drivers have other jobs? How many hours a week does an Uber driver without another job drive on average?
The company is giving us just the slice that looks good. I'm sure if you started diving into these questions, it wouldn't be pretty.
You are asking the right question. And Uber will never share answers to such questions :)
Even if 90% of Uber drivers drive <10 hr a week, its quite possible that more than 90% of the total ride time is be drivers who drive ~24 hrs a day.
In India, most Uber drivers I spoke to had a common thread. They buy new car, slog day and night to pay off the monthly payments, which means sleep for 3-4 hrs, work for 12 - 14 hrs.
Sleeping they do, wherever they'd find a safe place to park the car, and sign out of the Uber app. Basically no life of their own, until they pay off the car.
For many, lured by Uber's scheme of 'leasing to buy' cars scheme, once they have had the car for a month, its difficult to get out of that scheme because of loss aversion, and hope of independence after slogging for 3 to 4 years.
Even if 90% of Uber drivers drive <10 hr a week, its quite possible that more than 90% of the total ride time is be drivers who drive ~24 hrs a day.
In India, most Uber drivers I spoke to had a common thread. They buy new car, slog day and night to pay off the monthly payments, which means sleep for 3-4 hrs, work for 12 - 14 hrs.
Sleeping they do, wherever they'd find a safe place to park the car, and sign out of the Uber app. Basically no life of their own, until they pay off the car.
For many, lured by Uber's scheme of 'leasing to buy' cars scheme, once they have had the car for a month, its difficult to get out of that scheme because of loss aversion, and hope of independence after slogging for 3 to 4 years.
It is indentured slavery. I hate to say it, but my fellow tech workers are embarrassing us. We need to stand up for these workers. How many people that work at Uber would disagree with this practice but never speak up about it?
What though, is wrong with it?
As far as I can see, simply that the same company helps them get the loan is the same one that pays them to drive. And also that they probably buy new cars and are upside down on the loan as soon as they drive off the lot.
As far as I can see, simply that the same company helps them get the loan is the same one that pays them to drive. And also that they probably buy new cars and are upside down on the loan as soon as they drive off the lot.
I agree with you that these drivers are getting loans only because Uber and its partners are willing give, and in return gobble up a huge share of the driver's earnings.
But, isn't that like asking 'whats wrong in giving subprime loans?'
The way I see it, at least for Uber drivers in US getting such loans from Santander+Uber, its a raw deal.
In 4-6 years if they pay off the car as earnings continue to slide, they'll be holding onto a car which has 200K+ to 400K+ miles on it and worth not much. And in 4 years there's a very very good possibility that short haul rides could be fully autonomous.
But, isn't that like asking 'whats wrong in giving subprime loans?'
The way I see it, at least for Uber drivers in US getting such loans from Santander+Uber, its a raw deal.
In 4-6 years if they pay off the car as earnings continue to slide, they'll be holding onto a car which has 200K+ to 400K+ miles on it and worth not much. And in 4 years there's a very very good possibility that short haul rides could be fully autonomous.
Well, it's certainly a deal than neither of us would take, but if the person bought intelligently and drove conservatively, it could be a win for them.
Certainly to the point where I don't want to forbid them making that contract if they see fit. And the fact that Uber profits as well doesn't change the driver's rights in dealing with them. If the driver got a separate loan from the bank we wouldn't be having this discussion. Smart or not, it's their right.
The issue is all in the one company having too much control - like miners in a company town being under the thumb of a landlord and boss who were the same and shared information about the employee. That does bother me and I might want to pass a law to forbid that, to ensure there's a wall between those roles.
Certainly to the point where I don't want to forbid them making that contract if they see fit. And the fact that Uber profits as well doesn't change the driver's rights in dealing with them. If the driver got a separate loan from the bank we wouldn't be having this discussion. Smart or not, it's their right.
The issue is all in the one company having too much control - like miners in a company town being under the thumb of a landlord and boss who were the same and shared information about the employee. That does bother me and I might want to pass a law to forbid that, to ensure there's a wall between those roles.
In Dickens' time kids were chained to the machines and beds were rented per shift, so they were always kept warm.
Now it's also adults in the prime of their earning years and the bed is now gone, the baron robbers of Silicon Valley took the last perk of the working man.
I wonder how this age will be remembered in a couple of centuries.
Now it's also adults in the prime of their earning years and the bed is now gone, the baron robbers of Silicon Valley took the last perk of the working man.
I wonder how this age will be remembered in a couple of centuries.
It's not just about the $80000 salary. It's about the company perks, like organized camping trips.
I just read an article about obsolete features in homes. One was garages. They claimed the rise of ride sharing and self driving cars would mean people need less space to store their cars. My first thought was that those things would not mean less driving going on, perhaps fewer total cars, but then where would those self driving and uber cars be stored?
Well storage space would first and foremost decline substantially as cars spend a huge amount of time on the road. So instead of sitting in a parking spot 23 hours a day, it would sit there maybe 6-8 hours a day (at night)
So where does it stay during those 6-8 hours? Well why not out in the streets in residential areas where it's as close as possible to people who would likely be commuting early in the morning. The streets would be fairly empty and it wouldn't be an issue because self driving cars would easily maneuver themselves.
This would be a scenario where all cars are owned by some organization (e.g. uber, the government, etc.) and then rented per trip by users. The result is cost savings for everyone involved.
So where does it stay during those 6-8 hours? Well why not out in the streets in residential areas where it's as close as possible to people who would likely be commuting early in the morning. The streets would be fairly empty and it wouldn't be an issue because self driving cars would easily maneuver themselves.
This would be a scenario where all cars are owned by some organization (e.g. uber, the government, etc.) and then rented per trip by users. The result is cost savings for everyone involved.
Less demand for off-street parking doesn't mean it's going to disappear completely, though. I have no particular use for my driveway, but I let my neighbor park there for a nominal fee.
Do you happen to have a link, or remember the title?
"... and how long to drive."
Hopefully there won't be many fatigue related accidents. But no worries for Uber, the drivers aren't employees!
Hopefully there won't be many fatigue related accidents. But no worries for Uber, the drivers aren't employees!
The sharing economy for parking lots and bathrooms.
I love uber. When we were snowed in and my wife needed to get to the airport, an uber driver in a Tahoe got the job done.
However, all the financial news I read about is how much money uber is losing.
My question is, where does it go? Insurance? Legal municipal wrangling? Embezzlement?
Also, looks like a startup opportunity for providing Uber drivers a safe place to spend the night (self storage style).
However, all the financial news I read about is how much money uber is losing.
My question is, where does it go? Insurance? Legal municipal wrangling? Embezzlement?
Also, looks like a startup opportunity for providing Uber drivers a safe place to spend the night (self storage style).
Paying drivers more than they are making from customers.
So it's a game of "who can lose money the longest?"
I guess the customer's win for as long as the VCs want to pour money into it. It's hard for me to believe that's a winning strategy... even if you outlast the competition, eventually you have to start making money and as soon as you raise prices again, competition can start back up.
I'm probably underestimating network effects.
I guess the customer's win for as long as the VCs want to pour money into it. It's hard for me to believe that's a winning strategy... even if you outlast the competition, eventually you have to start making money and as soon as you raise prices again, competition can start back up.
I'm probably underestimating network effects.
Simply because you are burning cash, doesn't mean that the value of your company is falling.
I know it's tempting to see it that way, especially since uber is as large as it is, but the winning strategy is also to survive as the dominant player until self-driving cars are commonplace.
Then you replace the drivers with cars, and thanks to your network you have a huge first mover advantage in the driverless taxi industry. It's during the initial period of this stage that you would see the most profits, and then as more companies enter the market you would begin to have to compete on price and quality.
I know it's tempting to see it that way, especially since uber is as large as it is, but the winning strategy is also to survive as the dominant player until self-driving cars are commonplace.
Then you replace the drivers with cars, and thanks to your network you have a huge first mover advantage in the driverless taxi industry. It's during the initial period of this stage that you would see the most profits, and then as more companies enter the market you would begin to have to compete on price and quality.
[deleted]
Awesome! India here we come!
I predict that rideshare-pedestrian deaths are going to skyrocket in 2017 as more drivers take desperate measures to try to get by.