Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California • Hacker News Board

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#751

Post by SilasX » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 12:05 AM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #669

SilasX wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind, Sidecar went all the way with that -- drivers set their own prices and riders picked from a list of said drivers' offers, weighing their quality/time/cost. And yet I can't seem to find anyone at at the time of operation (i.e. up to EOY 2014) defending Sidecar as being substantively different from Uber with regard to the contractor distinction. Edit: corrected the year

This wasn't a big issue back in 2014, so there wouldn't have been much if any discussion on it for a much smaller service that had almost no market share.

That's a different memory than I have, where it was huge by late 2013. Here's a HN story from mid 2014 where a taxi company discusses adapting by selling medallions (and thus ceding some car's right to street hails) and going more app-based in order to compete with Uber, so yes, low cost Uber rides were huge then.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8134323

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#752

Post by 3gg » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 12:07 AM UTC

coffeemug wrote: post #506

Barrin92 wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> also don't see who benefits from this. Long term society by establishing that Uber doesn't get to write the law and dodge their responsibility as an employer. It's about time they get knocked down a notch after their campaign against DeBlasio.

It's the other way around. The government is infiltrated by socialists who pass unjust laws that interfere with perfectly reasonable contracts between consenting adults. Nobody in their right mind believes gig workers are employees-- the economics doesn't work, it doesn't fit prima facie, and no one wants it. Uber needs to win this thing to keep the government from writing laws that have no ethical basis whatsoever.

This comment has no ethical basis either. The relationship between Uber and its employees is described as a "perfectly reasonable contract between consenting adults", as if the employees were on equal grounds to make demands and the company were not exploiting them in the first place.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#753

Post by s17n » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 12:07 AM UTC

JakeTheAndroid wrote: post #626

a13n wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this puts pressure on the government to find a compromise, because Californians will be pissed that Uber stops working.

Either that, or in the wake of this some other company finds a way to achieve this same result in compliance with the laws and captures the market. I think both outcomes would be acceptable.

It's not really that hard, you just have to increase prices a bit, which in turn shrinks the market, which in turn means you aren't a $100B company. Maybe more like a $1B company or so. Obviously this would be a disaster for Uber, but that doesn't mean it's not a viable business model.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#754

Post by mdorazio » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 12:08 AM UTC

Jommi wrote: post #714

slipheen wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really harmful outlook. If company A decides that they are going to pay their workers (say) $3/hr, and illegally bypass the minimum wage, it _DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL_ if they can find workers willing to work for that amount. As a society, we've decided that certain offers aren't acceptable, even if you can find someone desperate enough to take the offer. You shouldn't get to just ignore the law because you're…

However, if company A is in a free market industry they would not be able to sustain that 3$/hr. Uber has been able to sustain their policies for close to 10 years now. Its pretty clear that drivers are being paid an amount close to their actual value. If they werent, they would be working for some other job.

You're assuming two things that aren't true:

1) Other, better, jobs of the same type (hours/entry requirements/pay) are available to drivers. Reality: Uber created a class of "job" where the bar for entry is so ridiculously low that anyone with a basic driver's license can do it. At the same time, real incomes for primary jobs currently or previously worked by Uber drivers are often not high enough to actually cover cost of living where they live. There are multiple market distortions on both sides going on here that are too long to discuss in a comment, but saying "well if it was so bad they would just work somewhere else!" is a pretty bad argument. If getting black lung was so bad, why didn't coal miners just work somewhere else?

2) Other companies can pull the same legal and financial shenanigans as Uber to offer those opportunities. Reality: Uber has never been profitable - if it wasn't VC funded it would have to pay its drivers even less than it currently does, so acting like it's a cost competitive business is incorrect. Uber also does not adhere to laws, as in this case with CA - other companies (like taxi companies) that do adhere cannot compete (and thus cannot provide alternative opportunities) because running in adherence is expensive.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#755

Post by claudiawerner » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 12:08 AM UTC

lhh wrote: post #711

enraged_camel wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I don't agree that the government should be deeming any type of agreement that adults voluntarily enter into as illegal. You cannot legally own slaves, even if both parties are consenting adults. So clearly, your premise is flawed: there are absolutely things that the government can determine to be illegal. In California, this includes exploitative labor relationships (again, even if both parties consent to the ag…

> You cannot legally own slaves, even if both parties are consenting adults. So clearly, your premise is flawed: there are absolutely things that the government can determine to be illegal. In California, this includes exploitative labor relationships (again, even if both parties consent to the agreement). If someone wants to sell themselves into slavery, I say let them (though perhaps there should be an exception if…

>I challenge your premise that it's possible to consider a labor relationship exploitative if both parties voluntarily enter into it.

This is a philosophical point, and there are scholars working in economics and economic philosophy who have argued that some kind of mutual benefit is does not preclude exploitation. See for example J.E Roemer, Roberto Veneziani, and Nikolos Vrousalis, three economists on the matter. See also here[0]. In addition, slavery may not only be problematic because of the 'degenerative case' mentioned.

[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exploitation/#ConcExpl

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#756

Post by core-questions » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 12:09 AM UTC

aslfksdfl wrote: post #736

core-questions wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazing that you're downvoted. Are HN posters really so sheltered that they don't know that this is a reality in many major American cities? I'm sure it's in areas they never visit, for totally unspecified reasons, but it's real. There are areas (e.g. in Camden NJ) where the police will tell you to not stop your car for any reason, just get through and get out. Pretending this isn't a reality or that it doesn't have…

I take it your experience in cities is extremely limited.

I really don't know how you got that from me being the one who's warning you things can go sideways. If you've only had good experiences in cities, if you've never been mugged, if you've never been scared, or seen someone else in such a situation, it's you who has the limited experience.

Not that I want you to have a bad experience. Not that all cities are so bad, or that you're guaranteed a bad time everywhere. There's plenty of good left. But it's easy for someone who doesn't have their wits about them and doesn't know where to avoid to end up in the wrong place and have things go sideways. Don't be that person.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#757

Post by newacct583 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 12:27 AM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #680

slipheen wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a really harmful outlook. If company A decides that they are going to pay their workers (say) $3/hr, and illegally bypass the minimum wage, it _DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL_ if they can find workers willing to work for that amount. As a society, we've decided that certain offers aren't acceptable, even if you can find someone desperate enough to take the offer. You shouldn't get to just ignore the law because you're…

There is a floor to what people will be willing to accept -- if they can make more money from unemployment benefits than from working, they won't work. Many Uber drivers are facing a choice between gig work and unemployment, and they chose gig work. If they had better options they would have chosen those instead, but they didn't. Clearly they prefer gig work to unemployment, and for most of them, those were the only…

That's not the way UI works. Benefits must be qualified for; you generally have to have had a job that you lost (gig economy jobs complicate this severely and often disqualify people). You can't just "quit" and pick up benefits. And there is a time limit in all states after which the benefits terminate.

Very, very few people at any given time have a "choice" as to whether to get unemployment or work a gig job.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#758

Post by diebeforei485 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 12:28 AM UTC

chucknthem wrote: post #264

mtnGoat wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i was unaware of these changes, its interesting to see the changes that were made. it will be interesting to see how they effect riders/drivers over time. thank you for the post.

Former Uber employee here...unfortunately many of those changes either made rider experience worse or made the marketplace less efficient. Lyft gained share as a result of these changes. At the current rate, the gig industry will be regulated out of california and other regions that follow suit (this surely sets regulatory precedence for others). The product won't be at a mass market compelling price point without a…

Did Lyft figure out another legal way to do this? Or are they simply ignoring AB5?

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#759

Post by SilasX » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 12:29 AM UTC

mrfusion wrote: post #418

pininja wrote: post #166

I work at Uber outside of the rides/eats business and observed many feature releases to adjust the business after AB5. What I saw released: - Enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip [0] [2] - Removed a main penalty for declining rides, “No More 85% Acceptance Rate Requirement For Uber Pro” [2] - Drivers get set their own fare with a multiplier [1] (the article details screenshots and…

Why can’t uber just position itself as a lead generation service for drivers?

That's what Sidecar was! Drivers set prices, and riders chose between drivers' offers. It failed against competition from Uber/Lyft and shut down EOY 2014.

But arguably, that was because Uber/Lyft had an unfair advantage from being able to exercise tight control over drivers while not having to obey regulations for employees, while Sidecar had more limited control over drivers. If everyone had to use the Sidecar model, it might work out, but you need equitable laws (that apply to everyone) to make that work.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#760

Post by cwkoss » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 12:30 AM UTC

paulcnichols wrote: post #72

Decoupling “benefits” like healthcare and retirement from employment is the real issue. Should be a government responsibility, given out equally, paid for by taxes.

88% of democratic voters (and 68% of independents) support Medicare for All, yet inexplicably DNC leadership voted against including in the 2020 party platform.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/494602-pol...