Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT study shows how much driving for Uber or Lyft sucks

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: MIT study shows how much driving for Uber or Lyft sucks

#11

Post by consto »

bitslayer wrote: post #5

The hegemony of car culture is so ingrained that people are not even aware of how much it personally costs them. These companies are taking advantage of this loophole. People notice gas prices go up and down with great interest, but that is just a small part of the total cost. Since you pretty much have to have a car to just exist in society, people don't count the capital expenses.

> Since you pretty much have to have a car to just exist in society

Perhaps in America, but you can certainly "exist" in virtually any European city without a car. Anecdotally, I have managed to "exist" for the past four years without owning a car. I know how to drive one and possess a driving license, but have chosen not too.

Re: MIT study shows how much driving for Uber or Lyft sucks

#12

Post by spinlock »

madengr wrote: post #2

IIRC when Uber & Lyft were started, it was never supposed to be a full time job, or even a taxi service. You were supposed to make some easy money by offering a ride along a route you were already taking for your normal activities. Any job that has no barriers (difficulty, education, licensing) to entry will be eventually driven to zero profit.

I think that was Lyft's model but Uber was "everybody's private driver" for their first product. They were black cars with professional drivers who did do it as a full time job.

Now, "everybody's private driver" was 2x the cost of a cab (at least) so I think it was a better deal for the drivers. But, to your point, the barriers to entry were owning a black car, being licensed, and Uber vetted their drivers very carefully.

Totally different from what they're doing now.

But, I've also never met an Uber driver -- who used to be a cabbie -- that didn't think Uber was a _better_ deal than driving a cab. If you're a cab driver, you also have to rent a cab with a medalion which was an astronomical cost compared to just buying and maintaining a car.

So, I think this study comes off as disingenuous for not comparing Uber and Lyft to the traditional job of driving a cab.

Re: MIT study shows how much driving for Uber or Lyft sucks

#14

Post by bringtheaction »

consto wrote: post #11
bitslayer wrote: post #5

The hegemony of car culture is so ingrained that people are not even aware of how much it personally costs them. These companies are taking advantage of this loophole. People notice gas prices go up and down with great interest, but that is just a small part of the total cost. Since you pretty much have to have a car to just exist in society, people don't count the capital expenses.

> Since you pretty much have to have a car to just exist in society Perhaps in America, but you can certainly "exist" in virtually any European city without a car. Anecdotally, I have managed to "exist" for the past four years without owning a car. I know how to drive one and possess a driving license, but have chosen not too.

> Anecdotally, I have managed to "exist" for the past four years without owning a car

I've managed to do so my whole life ;)

But when someone says that a car is necessary I think it's always implied that they are talking about the US. I don't think most educated people think that you need one as much in every other country.

Re: MIT study shows how much driving for Uber or Lyft sucks

#15

Post by peacetreefrog »

This paper:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23296

Talks about how much of the value to Uber drivers is in that the work is flexible and can be done on their own schedule. More than 2x the producer surplus vs less flexible arraignments. Put another way: if drivers HAD to work at the prevailing wages and didn't have the flexibility, they'd reduce the hours they supply by 2/3.

Looked at the MIT study for a bit and they don't appear to mention this. Obv flexibility is a major component of the economics of driving for Uber and Lyft and the benefits thereto. If they're ignoring this they're missing a big part of the picture.

Re: MIT study shows how much driving for Uber or Lyft sucks

#17

Post by foepys »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #3
madengr wrote: post #2

IIRC when Uber & Lyft were started, it was never supposed to be a full time job, or even a taxi service. You were supposed to make some easy money by offering a ride along a route you were already taking for your normal activities. Any job that has no barriers (difficulty, education, licensing) to entry will be eventually driven to zero profit.

That's what they said, but I don't think it's ever been used that way.

All those "shareconomy" companies try to portrait themselves as organizing platforms for the average individual to earn a few bucks on the side.

But in reality most of the services are used by other highly professionalized companies that operate outside of any traditional legislation. AirBnB is being used by companies to full-time rent apartments in attractive metro areas while avoiding hotel taxes and Uber is being used by professional drivers that don't pay the usual taxi service fees and/or taxes. Because of that both AirBnB and Uber are cheaper than the traditional hotel/taxi service and take away revenue from the businesses that adhere to the law.

Re: MIT study shows how much driving for Uber or Lyft sucks

#18

Post by IntronExon »

freddie_mercury wrote: post #9
BatFastard wrote: post #6

Being a driver is a short term strategy for the companies who plan on replacing all drivers with autonomous services. So this result is no surprize.

This is a popular current talking point but Uber is 9 years old and most people reckon autonomous services are at least another year or two out. Having human drivers for over a decade is not a "short term strategy" for most reasonable definitions of short term.

I think we’re decades from real lvl 5 automation, not just a few years. Either way though, this study suggests that Uber stands to save relatively little per ride on automation. It would just appear that their business model is inherently unsustainable.

Re: MIT study shows how much driving for Uber or Lyft sucks

#19

Post by santoshalper »

bringtheaction wrote: post #14
consto wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since you pretty much have to have a car to just exist in society Perhaps in America, but you can certainly "exist" in virtually any European city without a car. Anecdotally, I have managed to "exist" for the past four years without owning a car. I know how to drive one and possess a driving license, but have chosen not too.

> Anecdotally, I have managed to "exist" for the past four years without owning a car I've managed to do so my whole life ;) But when someone says that a car is necessary I think it's always implied that they are talking about the US. I don't think most educated people think that you need one as much in every other country.

It even depends on where you live in the US. But mostly, a car is a virtual necessity.

Re: MIT study shows how much driving for Uber or Lyft sucks

#20

Post by bitwize »

bitslayer wrote: post #5

The hegemony of car culture is so ingrained that people are not even aware of how much it personally costs them. These companies are taking advantage of this loophole. People notice gas prices go up and down with great interest, but that is just a small part of the total cost. Since you pretty much have to have a car to just exist in society, people don't count the capital expenses.

There are places where existing with a car is a giant pain in the ass. A motor scooter might be feasible and useful. I forwent automobiles entirely for ten years after moving to ${MAJOR_NORTHEASTERN_METROPOLIS} and now I don't know what I'd do with one of I had one: my driving skills are so rusty I'd be afraid to use it.
Post reply on HN