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

Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

lyft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#711

Post by rightbyte »

mumblemumble wrote: post #664
lsiebert wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically this. As best I can tell, most of the flexibility Uber and Lyft want is the flexibility to pay people less and give them less benefits and prevent them from being able to unionize/organize effectively.

Assuming that what Lyft is saying about "4 out of 5 drivers don't support" is accurate, that would seem to imply that this is also about giving flexibility to all the people who are only driving 5 hours a week to pick up some spare pocket change. Which is the model for how this would mostly work that is invoked by the word "rideshare." I do see a potential problem here of the interests of people who do this as their…

Surely "ridesharing" should be reserved for when a group of people share the same vehicle and all are going in the same direction, with another purpose than driving the group there. If I drive my friend to the airport and I then drive back we did not share a ride I gave him a ride.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#713

Post by baggy_trough »

seankimdesign wrote: post #699

Kudos on that moral victory California. You robbed my mobility-impaired younger sister of her legs without providing any alternative. Fuck your sorry excuse of public transit filled with gawkers and requiring her to wonder whether there will be connected sidewalks for her to solve her last-two-mile trip on her chair. "Oh, but Uber and Lyft were brought down by their own greed" Well, where is the non-greedy alternativ…

Why do you assume good intentions? It's more likely that this law was the result of campaign bribes from unions.

Unions want to have fewer (unionized) people employed at higher compensation. Gig workers go against that because there is higher employment at lower compensation.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#714

Post by yibg »

the_gipsy wrote: post #652
eps wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if they are driving someone for Uber, they can't be on the clock for Lyft.

But it is (physically) possible to be idle for both employers at the same time.

What happens if ride requests for both come in at the same time? Do you take the uber one or the lyft one? If you work for uber, you're obligated to take the uber ride. Ditto for lyft.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#715

Post by igor47 »

boreas wrote: post #536
AgloeDreams wrote: post #461

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…

> the best way to allocate resources

i think the word that jumps out at me here is "best". what does this mean? is there an absolute agreed-upon best, or is best relative?

in this situation (re: ride-share companies), i think it's entirely possible that there are overall market wins -- more money ends up circulating -- but that there are local losers, specifically the employees of these companies, and local winners -- the management, investors, and employees of these companies -- and that the group of losers actually outnumbers the winners.

some folks put the rideshare-using public into the group of winners, which i think is debatable.

either way, i think it should be permissible to defend the group that's least able to defend itself -- rideshare drivers who are doing gig work to make ends meet -- even if that results in "suboptimal" global outcomes.

i think this debate broadly parallels the overall debate in neoliberal economics. for instance, yes, trade makes everyone better off on average, but in practice it makes some folks (the 1%) much, much better off, and impoverishes broad groups of other people.

i think i heard from this podcast: https://www.vox.com/2020/7/17/21327166/american-compass-the-...

the term "economic piety" -- the naive idea that by growing the pie, everyone becomes better off. this hasn't proved to be true in practice, and some economists are beginning to regard the idea with a bit of embarrassment.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#716

Post by cactus2093 »

bergstromm466 wrote: post #635
cactus2093 wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on one point, "ridesharing" is a silly word. I would call it something like an "Open Car Service". The main reason I can't get on board with the rest of this line of argument is that it ultimately just comes down to paternalistic protection of the poor disenfranchised gig workers that you clearly view as being less than capable, rational adult humans. The number of gig economy workers has been growin…

> it ultimately just comes down to paternalistic protection Isn't this same 'paternalistic protection' the same force Silicon Valley uses to guarantee monopoly rents from 'intellectual property'? "A globalised intellectual property rights system was immensely strengthened by TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) passed through the World Trade Organisation in 1994, shaped by a few US multinatio…

Sure? I'm not particularly familiar with this law, but I generally agree patents should have relatively modest limits.

Not sure how this applies to the current conversation though, of all the things that Uber and Lyft are commonly accused of I don't think protectionist patent enforcement is among them?

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#717

Post by xapata »

lsiebert wrote: post #625
carlosdp wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear this a lot, that Lyft/Uber could allow the same flexibility if they wanted to. It's not that the law dictates this shift, it's that the economics do. Requiring full employment means you can hire less drivers. If you have less drivers, you need more control over when they drive in order to make sure when customers are looking for a ride, they can find one, hence shifts.

Basically this. As best I can tell, most of the flexibility Uber and Lyft want is the flexibility to pay people less and give them less benefits and prevent them from being able to unionize/organize effectively.

Not quite. If Uber and Lyft must shoulder the burden of full-time employee status, they should get the benefits, too: dictating when someone works for maximum profit, and a no-compete clause in the contract.

The best solution is for the state to end the distinction between independent contractors and full-time employees. I wonder if there's a way to manipulate state corporate taxes and credits to essentially nullify the federal employee status rules. Increase corporate state income tax, use the revenue to credit the employer's portion of social security tax and the independent contractor's excess social security tax. Put a state sales tax on group medical insurance plans and use the funds to provide a public option. Could get complicated, but there's probably a way.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#719

Post by axaxs »

nickff wrote: post #636
silviogutierrez wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a good point. But I think taken to the extreme: who wouldn't prefer a private air-conditioned taxi over 100 ˚F subway platforms? In this hypothetical: we're assuming the facilities are good enough that the experience for the disabled is within reasonable parity. On the other hand, if it means having to go 40 blocks uptown, just to find an elevator then head back downtown, the system is inadequate and my narr…

If wheelchair users prefer to take private rides, and it's cheaper than adapting public transit to their needs, I really don't see why we need to worry about this kind of issue. Most people view mass transit as generally undesirable, so they're okay with 'missing out' on it, and I don't think the disabled population is large enough to significantly contribute to urban congestion. I suppose that mass transit ridership…

Just a question - why build public transport at all if it's undesirable? That just pushes everyone who can afford NOT to take it out, which leads to pollution, but worse, the effect that the populace using the public transportation are probably seen by others as 'more undesirable', leading to a snowball effect of people not using it until it's fully subsidized and terrible. That's what basically happened to busses in my old city. Even the less well off people would tell you not to ride one because it's full of crazies/homeless/beggars/etc. We're like, worse off than if they'd never have built it at all.

If we're serious about modernizing and reducing our carbon footprint, we should provide reliable, safe, comfortable transportation that people want to take. Not relegate it as a public service for the needy. (though the both can work together)

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#720

Post by umvi »

vertbhrtn wrote: post #463

It's fascinating how the subsistence wage is simultaneously too low for workers and too high corporations.

Imagine creating an app called "Clean Streets" - basically people can put bounties on streets, other people can collect the bounty by picking up the litter. Sounds like a great little idea right? The app takes a 1% fee for server upkeep. Win/win, bored teenagers make some extra money and your neighborhood gets cleaned up... right?

Wrong. Turns out, people aren't willing to pay that much for people to clean up their streets - only $1-5 on average per job. Yet it takes an hour to clean the street sometimes. That is an abysmal hourly wage, how can you expect desperate impoverished single mothers trying to work 3 jobs to live off of this?? Clean Streets ought to give a living wage and full health benefits to anyone who signs up. Oh, except... just one problem... the 1% transaction fee isn't enough to fund that, and jacking up pricing just means people stop using the app altogether.

So yes, in theory this app is great - if you can restrict its use to only non-desperate people. But desperate people would nevertheless try to make a living on it, and you would get lambasted by human rights activists for exploiting the poor. Sigh, I wish there were a way for things like this to exist.

Post reply on HN