Rideshare operations are being suspended in California • Hacker News Board

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#241

Post by malandrew » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 5:14 PM UTC

georgeecollins wrote: post #191

malandrew wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. It's basically a hostage situation. With the exception of not enforcing non-competes, I can't think of a single thing that makes California great that is the result of government. Hollywood is there because of the weather. The central valley is there because of the weather and the soil. The tech industry is there because of the defense industry in WWII and the importance of the west coast to the war effort in t…

I could not disagree more. I work for a film company and believe me Hollywood has had nothing to do with the weather for fifty years. Very little is actually shot on location in Los Angeles, yet it remains a center. Silicon Valley is because of the defense industry in WW2? OK sure, but then why not Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia etc. The aerospace industry was in Los Angeles, but that moved, so why couldn't tech move?…

> Hollywood has had nothing to do with the weather for fifty years.

It simply wouldn't be there in the first place had the weather not been as good as it was.

Part of the reason you're now seeing other cities blossom in importance in film has to do with weather no longer being as important. What continues to be important that preserves Hollywood is the concentration of talent, which itself still has as its root the great weather that helped the industry establish itself there in the first place.

While the weather may no longer be as important, it's the "natural resource" that made the region the epicenter of film in the first place.

> Silicon Valley is because of the defense industry in WW2? OK sure, but then why not Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia etc. The aerospace industry was in Los Angeles, but that moved, so why couldn't tech move?

I mentioned this exactly in the comment you're replying to and you ignored it. There was exactly one thing California got right and that is not enforcing non-compete agreements. This is why Fairchild Semiconductor spawned an entire industry and why companies like DEC around Route 128 did not.

> Here is my alternate hypothesis: California has always been relatively welcoming to people from all around the world.

Agree. But government has absolutely nothing to do with that.

The California government is no different than a trust fund kid failing upwards.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#242

Post by hadlock » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #30

nemothekid wrote: post #9

When I moved to CA, I put off getting a CA license for years. I always told myself I'd go to the DMV and do the paperwork, then I waited long enough to find out I would have to retake the test, until finally I just resigned to using Uber and Lyft all the time. I never thought I would need it and so I never made it a priority. So this news really sucks, as you haven't been able to schedule DMV appointments at all and…

The average person's response to being told they'd have to take another driver's test isn't to replace driving with Uber/Lyft. You're in a unique position to be able to afford to replace all driving with ridesharing, since gas+insurance+maintenance costs are much lower than say, a month of commuting to an office via rideshare.

When I was living in Dallas in 2014 I was using Uber full time and it was less than half the total cost of ownership of owning a used car at the time. And paying $10 to park downtown each day. It was about $3.15 one way which was even cheaper than the bus. I'm not sure what uber prices are in Dallas these days but it'd have to be close to $9 one way for it to be cheaper than owning a car in that situation. Uber was a major lifeline for me here in the Bay Area when I first arrived as I didn't have a car for the first three years. Parking in my area starts at around $250/mo. My uber bill was usually around $300/mo. Car insurance alone is at least $50/mo.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#243

Post by dmode » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

supernova87a wrote: post #229

I was really surprised by the 3rd requirement of the law to qualify as a contractor. Recall, the new law says that you can be counted as a contractor (instead of an employee) only if all 3 conditions are met [1]: -- Are free from control of the company in how the job is executed -- Perform work outside the company's normal line of business -- Are customarily engaged in this work anyway as an independent worker This l…

I don't think the third pillar is a problem. You can claim you customarily engaging in driving as a work. The primary problem Uber and Lyft are running into is #2. The courts think that drivers perform work within the company's normal line of business, while Uber and Lyft believe they are a technology marketplace and not a transportation company.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#244

Post by el_benhameen » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

rileytg wrote: post #89

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average person's response to being told they'd have to take another driver's test isn't to replace driving with Uber/Lyft. You're in a unique position to be able to afford to replace all driving with ridesharing, since gas+insurance+maintenance costs are much lower than say, a month of commuting to an office via rideshare.

This is not true for everyone. I track my ride share spending and it’s significantly lower than owning a car. I spend less that $200 a month on average (2019 avg was $196). I’m in a unique position to do this, because i put myself in that position. i moved near my work and live in an urban area. even if it cost $400 a month, i would still do it this way. i read when i’m in the car, i wouldn’t trade that for staring a…

If you’re in the Bay, or really any other major tech hub in the US, you should also factor the increased cost of rent or mortgage payments into that calculation. I’m lucky to be remote, but if I moved close enough to SF or the Valley to spend only $200/month on ride shares to the office, my mortgage would at least triple. This would far offset any savings in gas/insurance/maintenance.

I’m happy that you’ve found a good situation for yourself and I don’t mean to disparage it. I just don’t think the comparison you’ve made is quite complete.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#245

Post by manigandham » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

tedivm wrote: post #60

kaesar14 wrote: post #13

Why can't we have a new worker classification that allows gig workers to have both the flexibility the job entails + better benefits/protections?

That's what AB5 did. It allowed for a new type of worker that was still partially an employee but would also allow for flexible hours and the ability for drivers to reject rides. That's what's so disingenuous about this campaign by Uber and Lyft. They're pretending that being an employee would take away all of this flexibility, but the reality is the legislation left that flexibility in place. This is entirely an arg…

That's nothing new. Employees can already have flexible hours and part-time employment.

The issue is that they're still considered employees which means predetermined shifts and control rather than fluid supply meeting demand by the minute. This changes the service (which matters more than the price for customers) so that it no longer works at the current scale.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#246

Post by UncleOxidant » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #72

Yes, voters in the US want to give people education, healthcare, and unemployment (or basic income-ish) benefits. Voters in the US also don’t want to pay for any of this. Hence, the politicians that get elected are ones that give people education via student loans, and healthcare/unemployment benefits tied to employer/employment status. Those politicians get to claim they helped people, and they get to claim they kep…

> Yes, voters in the US want to give people education, healthcare, and unemployment (or basic income-ish) benefits.

> Voters in the US also don’t want to pay for any of this.

A wealth tax is pretty popular. And we spend a whole lot in health insurance premiums.

Oh, and we could cut our defense (offense) spending in half and still be spending a good bit more than China.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#247

Post by graerg » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #192

rsweeney21 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their business model is on-demand transportation. The business model doesn't work if the workforce is not also on-demand. I don't think that's spin, but maybe society decides that we don't like on-demand businesses.

> The business model doesn't work if the workforce is not also on-demand. Have they tried it to confirm it 'doesn't work'? Maybe rideshare companies need to reduce their cut, and start putting more of that money into the driver's pocket. Doesn't mean it can't be a profitable business, though possibly low-margin. Have they tried paring back development costs, marketing costs, etc?

They're already losing money as is...

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#248

Post by Johnny555 » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

cactus2093 wrote: post #177

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average person's response to being told they'd have to take another driver's test isn't to replace driving with Uber/Lyft. You're in a unique position to be able to afford to replace all driving with ridesharing, since gas+insurance+maintenance costs are much lower than say, a month of commuting to an office via rideshare.

The irony in this comment is amazing. You're in a unique, privileged position to not even consider public transit for some trips an option. Public transit for everyday commute to work, plus Uber/Lyft for trips outside of common commute hours or off the beaten path where public transit is less reliable, can definitely be cheaper than car ownership.

Public transit in SF works well in some areas, not so well in others -- even making a single connection can add 30 - 45 minutes to your commute If you're going to the financial district or north SOMA, transit is usually viable, if you're going anywhere else, it's likely not so viable.

And this is a city that's only 7 miles wide -- I used to be able to bike downtown in less than than I spent waiting on the bus on most days (since I didn't just have to wait for one bus, I had to wait for a bus that wasn't already full to take on passengers)

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#249

Post by ysavir » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

subdane wrote: post #31

Am I nuts, or is the heart of this issue really the fact that our healthcare system is built on tying benefits to full time jobs?

It's not. That issue is tangential at best. If it was the crux of the issue here, you'd see many more companies going belly-up rather than pay for health insurance.

For this change, companies like Uber and Lyft will have to completely reorganize their internal systems, ranging from their relationships with drivers to their tooling for organizing their drivers.

They say things like "passengers would experience reduced service, especially in suburban and rural areas" when what they really mean is "lyft would have to pay drivers to be available in that area even when demand is low, and Lyft doesn't want to pay drivers to idle in low demand spaces". There are various solutions to this, but they would all cost Lyft and Uber money, and heaven forbid they not be able to pass those expenses onto others, such as drivers that would hang around those areas _without_ any compensation.

The real heart of the matter here is that 10 years ago Uber disrupted the taxi industry. Now that they're the incumbents, changes like these put Uber and Lyft in a position to be disrupted by newer companies that more easily adapt to regulatory changes, or possibly the taxi companies they disrupted a decade ago. What we're seeing now is Lyft taking drastic measures to try and enrage the public against these policies.

This is a kid throwing a tantrum because they aren't getting cake after refusing to their chores.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#250

Post by bassman9000 » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

nemothekid wrote: post #9

When I moved to CA, I put off getting a CA license for years. I always told myself I'd go to the DMV and do the paperwork, then I waited long enough to find out I would have to retake the test, until finally I just resigned to using Uber and Lyft all the time. I never thought I would need it and so I never made it a priority. So this news really sucks, as you haven't been able to schedule DMV appointments at all and…

You can also ride a cab.