MIT study shows how much driving for Uber or Lyft sucks • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by Haul4ss » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 5:53 PM UTC

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.

You can exist in many American cities without a car. However, America is a gigantic land mass and we are spread over areas of very different population density.

You may not need a car in NYC, but you need one if you live in the middle of Iowa.

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

#22

Post by giarc » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 5:54 PM UTC

peacetreefrog wrote: post #15

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'…

Could only read the abstract but how many drivers see that as a benefit? I've spoken with many drivers who drive because that's the only work they could get. Sure they are flexible, but only because driving is their only job. They would like to have a full time job but just can't get one.

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

#23

Post by santoshalper » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 5:56 PM UTC

As a socialist, I appreciate the desire to create sustainable living conditions for all people disconnected from the value the "free market" assigns them.

That said, I am a little baffled by the focus on gig-economy jobs. You want to know what really sucks? Try working at fucking Wal-Mart. All the same problems + zero respect for your time, no flexibility, etc.

Driving for Uber may suck, but the reason so many people do it is that working retail or fast food is much worse and they are desperate for money.

There are a lot of really nasty, shitty jobs in this world, apparently these are the only ones we can be bothered to care about.

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

#24

Post by santoshalper » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 6:00 PM UTC

spinlock wrote: post #12

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 caref…

That's my problem - these studies all assume that Uber and Lyft are competing against real jobs. The reality is that they are competing with jobs that are far worse and winning as a result. The Uber drivers I've talked to are glad to not being working at CVS or Burger King.

The real question is how does the richest nation in history think it is OK to pay adults a sub-living wage to do degrading menial labor so that a small number of people can be incredibly wealthy.

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

#25

Post by isatty » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 6:03 PM UTC

Gys wrote: post #10

I live in Portugal and Uber is sometimes more expensive then an ordinairy taxi. Talking to drivers they also seem very happy with their earnings. But minimum wages in Portugal are low. Last year in Singapore I also noticed Uber was seriously more expensive then regular cabs. I understand there its public knowledge, you pay more for the more flexible service (taxi's in SIN are often limited in supply). Just anecdotica…

I live in Singapore and I disagree. I take cabs everyday (atleast 2) and here's what I've found:

Regular cabs are often more expensive here (from personal experience) because they're metered (especially if you get stuck in a jam). Often, the drivers don't stop for you or reject your destination if it doesn't suit them. There is no standardization in payment either with some cabbies taking cards and some refusing to and only accepting cash.

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

#26

Post by peacetreefrog » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 6:19 PM UTC

giarc wrote: post #22

peacetreefrog wrote: post #15

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'…

Could only read the abstract but how many drivers see that as a benefit? I've spoken with many drivers who drive because that's the only work they could get. Sure they are flexible, but only because driving is their only job. They would like to have a full time job but just can't get one.

Producer surplus by definition is benefit to the drivers. It's the amount actually make minus the minimum amount they'd be willing to take. This paper purports to show how the minimum drivers are willing to accept (their reservation price) changes by the hour. Flexibility -- fact they can choose to work when their reservation price is the lowest, or only lower than what they'd actually make -- is definitely a benefit.

Obviously a driver's alternatives are a big factor in whether/how much to drive, but flexibility might even MORE valuable to drivers who have other jobs, because they can work around it.

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

#27

Post by tudorconstantin » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 6:33 PM UTC

It seems lots of drivers consider that making a shitty 660$/month is better than making nothing.

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

#28

Post by richardknop » Sat, Mar 03, 2018, 5:05 AM UTC

Gys wrote: post #10

I live in Portugal and Uber is sometimes more expensive then an ordinairy taxi. Talking to drivers they also seem very happy with their earnings. But minimum wages in Portugal are low. Last year in Singapore I also noticed Uber was seriously more expensive then regular cabs. I understand there its public knowledge, you pay more for the more flexible service (taxi's in SIN are often limited in supply). Just anecdotica…

Uber/Grab are usually cheaper than taxis in Singapore actually. But they use dynamic pricing based on supply/demand so if you try to get Uber on Friday at 6pm in downtown then price might spike a LOT. But 90% of the time they will be cheaper than taxis.