Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Ridesharing' (Which is a hilarious term for the simple fact that the ride is not being shared, the driver is not intending to go to your favorite bar. ) isn't a 21st century situation or solution. It's not a profitable or a good force in an economy, it does not pay a reasonable wage for anyone to live on, it is not environmentally friendly unless done in large quantities of people,(which is called a bus). Ridesharin…
Ridesharing created a more or less competitive market for this slice of the transportation sector. Competitive markets are the best way to allocate resources. If you don't agree with that, it will be hard to have a productive discussion. But if you do agree with that, shouldn't we resolve inequalities by directly supporting the least fortunate (with cash) rather than force parties into arbitrary economic relationship…
They are not the best way to allocate resources - not least because they have huge social and political opportunity costs which are rarely understood by their fervent devotees.
Cash is not a solution to this, although it can be a productive first step in some limited circumstances.
The "arbitrary economic relationships" here are the ones being peddled by Uber and Lyft.
The point is neither Uber nor Lyft are viable businesses. Even with its advantages Uber is somehow managing to lose $3bn a year on its ride sharing service.
It only exists at all because investors hope it will somehow be able to throw its beta-drivers under the proverbial bus when self-driving cars finally become a thing, and too many of its drivers aren't aware of this and are expecting it to act like a long-term employer.