281–290 of 688 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CA is 12% of Uber's revenue and 25% of Lyft's revenue
Source? I've seen many different figures (including a very reliable source that stated it was in the single digits for Uber)
Completely anecdotal but I bring this question up every time I drive in an Uber and overwhelmingly the drivers tell me they want to stay independent. No one is forcing drivers into their jobs. I really struggle to understand why we need bureaucrats imposing their idea of what a market should look like on an fairly efficient market. From my experience the drivers are perfectly aware of the costs that go into driving s…
They want to stay independent, fine. Then actually treat them like independent contractors. Let them set rates. Let them decline rides without facing penalties by the platform. Make the changes necessary to fit the independent contractor model. And not just the rideshare company, but the state too: these workers need unemployment insurance, as Covid has shown, and somebody needs to pay for it: be it the workers or th…
The independent contractor model works both ways. Uber has the right to avoid working with contractors who continually refuse work. You can't be picky about your work but also demand the company keep contracting you like you weren't.
The independent contractor model doesn't map perfectly to gig work but it's much closer than traditional employees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I genuinely don't understand this position. I don't see how replacing a "bad" option with no option helps anyone, especially the people that were willing to take the "bad" option.
If the economy cannot support enough reasonable paying jobs with adequate health insurance, then the answer is to re-think how the economy works, not create more garbage jobs that earn miserable livelihoods. If we did things like abandon employer-subsidized healthcare for a modern single payer system, then maybe it wouldn't be so disadvantageous for drivers to be classified as contractors.
I don't see why anyone other than the person doing the work gets to define what "reasonable" or "adequate" is. It also seems completely heartless to me to put people out of work in order to push a political agenda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I genuinely don't understand this position. I don't see how replacing a "bad" option with no option helps anyone, especially the people that were willing to take the "bad" option.
The missing link is that you're raising a false dichotomy. Its a sliding scale of profit margin. Instead of bad or none, the choice is more low paying options or fewer higher paying options. Some will receive higher wages, while some opportunities will not be available. Both sides believe the net benefit backs up their stated position and there's very little compelling data one way or another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tangent: $6/hr sounds a bit low; actual costs are probably higher. The IRS standard mileage rate (the amount you can deduct from your taxes for each mile driven) is $0.58/mi ( https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/standard-mileage-rates ) $6/hr operating costs means the driver is driving a max of ~10mi/hour, if costs to operate are in line with IRS guidelines.
The IRS deprecation is very far above the costs in actual practice. It's a very conservative number.
Quick math:
($25,000 cost to buy car new -
$4,000 residual value at end-of-life
) / 100,000 miles usable lifetime =
$0.21/mi depreciation of value
$3.22 / gallon * (1 / (17 mi / gal fuel efficiency)) =
$0.19/mi for fuel
Maintenance:
$40 per oil change / 8,000 miles = $0.01 / mi
$600 tire change / 60,000 miles = $0.01 / mi
$1,186 average yearly repair / 16,000 average miles driven = $0.07 mile
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I genuinely don't understand this position. I don't see how replacing a "bad" option with no option helps anyone, especially the people that were willing to take the "bad" option.
If the economy cannot support enough reasonable paying jobs with adequate health insurance, then the answer is to re-think how the economy works, not create more garbage jobs that earn miserable livelihoods. If we did things like abandon employer-subsidized healthcare for a modern single payer system, then maybe it wouldn't be so disadvantageous for drivers to be classified as contractors.
Completely anecdotal but I bring this question up every time I drive in an Uber and overwhelmingly the drivers tell me they want to stay independent. No one is forcing drivers into their jobs. I really struggle to understand why we need bureaucrats imposing their idea of what a market should look like on an fairly efficient market. From my experience the drivers are perfectly aware of the costs that go into driving s…
However, I overwhelmingly don't want to pay for their healthcare or food stamps because they aren't earning enough money.
I personally think that AB5 doesn't go far enough. If you employ people for more than 40 hours, you should owe healthcare and benefits, period. It doesn't matter whether those 40 hours are one person or 10 people or whether the people are contractors or employees. If you can't deliver benefits, fine, then you owe as payment to the government to provide that.
We WANT people to have stable employment, not gigs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can find work elsewhere then?
Didn't we already go through this line of reasoning during the industrial revolution? Didn't we already have our muckraking moments to show exactly why this line of reasoning is full of assumptions, totally devoid and dissociated from the actual reality of people's lives?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The talking points I heard was that this was done because of 1) Payroll tax revenue 2) Unions feeling threatened The implication is in either case it’s an explicitly hostile action by the government in favor of special interests, and the majority of drivers did not want this. Can anyone more knowledgeable on the topic pitch in — is there any truth to these arguments?
The Los Angeles taxi union prevented (read: bribed and coerced) the state / city government from installing a train from LAX to DTLA because they were rolling in cash. Then, they got pissed about Uber, and had a rule enacted that forced passengers to take a bus to an external lot which turned the world's worst airport congestion into a way worse situation. It is not unrealistic to think that they are a driving force…
To your comment about rideshare pickups at the terminals. Just no. Pre-COVID I was flying for work weekly and Uber & Lyft pickups were awful for congestion in the circle, in addition to taking forever to get to you. It was often faster to walk off-airport and get a ride from the Hyatt. And that was with normal level of traffic, not the expected Olympics-level. I'm sure the taxi union was involved, but the decision to switch to LAX-it made a whole lot of sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber and Lyft already did this in California after the passage of AB5 earlier this year. That's why they now have price estimates instead of giving exact values ahead of time.
So how that works in practice? One of the major advantages of Uber for me was fixed price upfront. So now I don't know the price until I order the ride? What if the driver sets an excessive price - can I decline the ride?
My understanding is that the rider is presented with a range of possible fares before searching (e.g. $9-10). If they are matched with a driver asking for a higher fare than that range they have the option to decline.