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

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

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–840 of 887 posts

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

#831

Post by brippalcharrid »

kunai wrote: post #794
lhh wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you care about is lifting citizenry out of poverty, free markets have the best track record by far, despite countless attempts otherwise.

Free markets are excellent for lifting the baseline level of wealth among a nation's people (Marx admitted this as industrialization rapidly increased the wealth of Western Europe at the time of his coming of age). It does not solve the issue of wealth inequality, and exacerbates it to an extent to the point where an individual's wealth and the labor they expend to create that wealth are completely non-correlating --…

No; capitalism is a system based upon property rights and as such it requires that contracts are voluntary and mutually consensual. The USA doesn't have capitalism, it has a Mixed Economy, which combines aspects of capitalism and socialism.

In a relatively unregulated marketplace, an Uber driver comes with their time, equipment and skills, ready to trade them for money. Uber in exchange offers money and the use of its infrastructure and relationships. Together they potentially agree a price, but neither side, nor the government nor some other external entity can dictate terms of their agreement.

Wealth inequality is only an issue if your world-view demands that you makes it into one. In a free market, wealth inequality in itself does not affect a person's life in any tangible way. Your comment about the wages of laborers seems to relate to the Labor Theory of Value; this concept is often used in conjunction with a claim that labour is inabstractable in an attempt to dismiss the interchangeability of human labor for automation, but that's patently absurd, because we're talking about this on a messaging board for computer programmers. Our economic system, even with its burdensome and overweening regulation, still does a good job of allocating resources to productive enterprises and people, and I'm afraid that in the laborer-capital-investor example that you gave at the start, the worker is only gaining from the deployment of capital in proportion to what they themselves have deferred the consumption of and then risked in the deployment of capital (vice versa with the investor and their labor). And of course, that example is less applicable these days, because people generally have pensions and own shares.

(But don't worry, if I'm wrong, you can go ahead and make a ton of money proving it)

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

#832

Post by TheColorYellow »

SrslyJosh wrote: post #822
brianwawok wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that’s how innovation happens in the US? How are passengers trains innovating over the past 60 years?

Yes, the US sucks at investing in public infrastructure, especially transit. Obviously we should do nothing to try to change that. =)

Not the GP, but what would you suggest is a realistic alternative in the current state?

Reforming public institutions to more effectively build public transportation infrastructure seems to be incredibly difficult. Local institutions seem to have maxed out their ability to improve beyond what exists.

So why not let the private market innovate and improve? If the public institutions where smarter they'd be taking advantage of these innovations the same way as has happened in reverse when public institutions have had success with innovation.

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

#833

Post by brippalcharrid »

doomrobo wrote: post #491
bgorman wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drivers aren't forced to drive for Uber. Anyone driving for Uber is doing it because they want to do so. What makes something a fair wage?

This is too general an argument. Why did people work in factories where they'd lock the door during the day? Or where there were machines that sometimes ripped people's arms off? Why did this spur regulations on workplace conditions?

Possibly because the legal industry hadn't yet become commoditized or otherwise widely available or well-disposed to the people getting their arms ripped off in such a way as meant that they could sue the pants off factory owners that failed in their reasonable duty of care. The other less egregious examples would likely have improved gradually over time in line with general standards of living amongst the population, spurred on by competition between employers as they retooled and automated, and sought higher-skilled labor.

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

#834

Post by kadoban »

jmwilson wrote: post #611
novok wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if Adorama sells on amazon.com, does adorama the corporation become an employee of amazon? If the separation on that mindfuck is 'register a corp / LLC', then what prevents drivers making an LLC to drive for uber?

There's the $800 California LLC annual fee, which is the highest in the country, and applies before you make a dollar in revenue.

Does something prevent incorporating in another location that allows it? Doubt it.

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

#835

Post by ProAm »

Jommi wrote: post #704
olyjohn wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the thing that really chafes my testes. People need to get real and start calling it what it is. It's a taxi service. This is not ride sharing. The driver was not already going somewhere. The driver was waiting around for a call to pick someone up, and was going to take them where they wanted to go. Nothing is being shared. This is a Taxi service and the Uber app is the dispatcher. If I was already going to w…

Only misguided journalists use ridesharing anymore. Its been "ridehailing" the best past 3-4 years now.

"Taxi with a logistics app"

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

#836

Post by freediver »

deminature wrote: post #423
Will_Do wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty interesting! In my view, the set your own fare part and penalty removal definitely moves them from the "employee" zone to "self-employed" in the everyday definition. I guess AB5 is much more strict.

AB5 imposes an ABC test on businesses after the precedent set by Dynamex [1]. The specific point of contention the judge has is the B of the ABC - that is whether drivers 'perform work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business'. Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sides. The mo…

> Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sides.

UBER could theoretically function without the technology (a taxi service) but it could not function without the drivers, yet. If the fleet was driverless, then of course, they wouldn't have these problems in the first place.

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

#837

Post by J0_k3r »

WrongThinkerNo5 wrote: post #554
valuearb wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a horrible law. What if it’s a female driver and a sketchy rider? Or worse, her abusive ex?

I thought we were all about equality? Are we now not about equality? I can't keep up. And if a woman for some sexist reason can refuse a fare, why can't a man refuse a fare if, e.g., he does not like the destination area because it is riddled with crime and he is exponentially more likely to be robbed?

We're not. Everyone just likes to pretend that they are. Every white girl likes to virtue signal about how awesome they are but the reality is that white people have the lowest [0] miscegenation rate. The reality is that those who most claim to be against bigotry are often those who most perpetuate it.

[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/12/interracial...

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

#838

Post by freeone3000 »

brianwawok wrote: post #820
freeone3000 wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average monthly pay for an Uber driver is $400. Not all of them will qualify for health insurance, as you have to work 30 hours a week. Median health insurance cost is $600.

Median health insurance for someone making $400 a month under the ACA is not $600.

Corporate plans don't qualify for the ACA, only individuals. That is the actual median rate, from Anthem, for a corporate plan. Uber might get a better rate.

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

#839

Post by bartvk »

adrianN wrote: post #454
rubatuga wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is horrible for customers, the worst part is when drivers don't want to pick you up.

Here in Germany proper Taxis have to pick you up (as far as I know, I almost never need one). That's apparently the main reason they offer why they should be protected against services like Uber.

Yeah, here in The Netherlands too. Once I got into a taxi, and I ask how his business is doing, whether his car is paid off, etc. The guy tells me that he had a shitty week, because he had several days driving at a loss.

Apparently it's possible for a rather slow week to happen, in combination with rides that mean a loss for the driver.

I can't help but think that the business is quite tough.

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

#840

Post by mrunkel »

qeternity wrote: post #620
nrmitchi wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not going to state that "drivers are too dumb", but as far as I know it is definitely not clear that it is clear to a (potential) driver what they are actually being paid after all expenses. It is not unreasonable that any given person will not immediately understand the full cost of being a driver, including insurance (like ensuring that their existing auto insurance is even valid if you're ever driving for a c…

> It's not unreasonable... You mean unlikely. It is absolutely unreasonable. But these arguments just don’t stand up. In the early days, perhaps this is true. But everyone is massively aware of these arguments now and what you’re still arguing is that people need to be protected from themselves. Think about what you’re saying: your back-of-the-envelope conjecture without any empirical evidence should be taken over th…

If a person is dying of thirst, they'll stick drink brackish water if it's all their offered.

What is egregious about uber is that they themselves are tapping into the clean water source, extracting the best part for themselves and then leaving only brackish water for all the uber drivers.

If you believe the end goal of a society is to extract every last bit of value from its members, then yes, Uber is great.

If you believe the end goal of society is to provide some sort of dignified life for its members, then I don't see how you can justify what Uber does.

> How about this: let’s presume all of what you say is true. What if after all those costs are accounted for, it’s still profitable for many people to drive for Uber.

There have many studies done about what someone can earn from Uber. Even without the externalities nobody is going to get rich from Uber. With the externalities, they are barely making a subsistence wage.

Lastly, I would argue that even if working for Uber is a net negative, in the short term (even years) they can extract some value from an assets they already have (their vehicle and their time) against costs in the future. For someone who needs cash today, this is a acceptable tradeoff.

Post reply on HN