Live data from Hacker News

The Uber Bubble

braveneweurope.com

31–40 of 556 posts

Re: The Uber Bubble

#31
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slavery has redefined itself into newer forms. One such manifestation is in the form of worker exploitation.

Words don’t redefine themselves. Describing low-paying jobs as “slavery” is a metaphor. Saying “certain aspects of X are like Y” does not mean Y ‘is’ X. But, of course, that is often why rhetoricians use metaphors and similes… to dupe and confuse people into a false equivalence. There are slaves in this world… diluting the meaning of the word to include Uber drivers does not help them.

That is not the argument. The argument is that Uber business model is more cost-effective than Slavery. (And without trying to sound insensitive here)...the "slave owner" still bears the costs of his "slaves".

Re: The Uber Bubble

#32
post #30
post #5

Easy answer - They are still experiencing rapid revenue growth, they have a clear path to profitability with a simple monetization strategy, and have dominated the market in many territories.

> they have a clear path to profitability What is it? The problem I see is that there’s zero switching cost. It’s like buying salt at the supermarket. It’s all the same. They have nothing to differentiate them except their brand. Sure they can charge a little more because of that. National brands charge a bit more than generic. But you can’t raise prices 50+% and hope people will just stick with you so that you aren’…

> there’s zero switching cost

Finding an app, installing it, entering your card details and then hailing are switching costs. When I travel, I sometimes try the local app. I usually just use Uber. (In America I default to Lyft, in New York Revel.)

Keep in mind that Uber is profitable in some markets, e.g. New York.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#33
post #2

Uber’s margin gains have not come from efficiency improvements but from its ability to unilaterally cut driver compensation by 40 percent since 2016. So much more cost-effective than slavery.

Slavery is not a trade you choose to practice. Not sure how this is constructive.

Slavery is not a trade you choose to have practiced on you, it is a trade you choose to practice.

And as a slave, you always have a choice. It's not cost effective to monitor and restrain you well enough to keep you from killing yourself indefinitely. Lacking others, plenty of slaves have chosen and do choose this option. Same as if all physical work turns into piece/gig-work. You can choose to do it, or you can choose to starve.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#34

The piece is exactly right. Uber is effectively an instrument to shift economic gains from labour to capital by atomizing the workforce. From a macroeconomic perspective this is terrible because turning taxi firms into countless of one man businesses provides no efficiency gains, it's basically reverse economic development. There is a version of Uber that actually makes sense. As a lean SaaS company that sells its so…

> Uber is effectively an instrument to shift economic gains from labour to capital by atomizing the workforce.

This is the entire gig economy/sharing economy in a nutshell. The platform puts most of the financial risk on the labor side (drivers owning the cars if you're driving Uber, owning the house if you're Airbnb'ing it, etc.) and simply taking a cut of each transaction. The platform owns nothing, the workers have very few rights, and the company has complete control of the market. This is VC utopia right here.

The next financial crisis is gonna show us just how fragile this system is, whenever that is.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#35
My key takeaways:

1. Uber is actually a higher cost/less efficient producer of urban car services than the taxi companies it has driven out of business

2. Individual Uber drivers with limited capital cannot acquire, finance, maintain and insure vehicles more economically than Yellow Cab

3. Expenses other than drivers, vehicles, and fuel account for 15 percent of traditional taxi costs but Uber charges drivers 25-30 percent without coming close to covering their actual costs

4. Uber’s surge pricing does not improve efficiency, it simply prices those night shift workers out of the market

5. And as Uber has demonstrated, unlimited taxi market entry can lead to ruinous overcapacity and can allow part-timers to cherry-pick the peak revenue that full-time drivers depend on to cover their costs

6. Uber’s investors knew that it needed raw political power to accelerate growth, and to maintain its hoped-for dominance

7. Uber’s major strategic breakthrough was to treat business development as an entirely political process, using techniques that had proven successful in partisan political settings

8. All of Uber’s early popularity and rapid revenue and valuation growth are explained by the billions in predatory investor subsidies needed to drive those more efficient (but poorly capitalized) incumbents into bankruptcy

9. That [early popularity] allowed [Uber] to pursue more stratospheric valuations by exploiting anticompetitive market power and rent-extraction and buying out any potential competitive threats

Re: The Uber Bubble

#36

Why are there so many competitors in the delivery/taxi type services, but in the short term rental industry Airbnb seems to be mostly unchallenged? I would've expected to see a lot of VC money being thrown there as well, but I'm only seeing Airbnb raising their fees and actually making a profit.

Isn’t booking.com up there as well in that field?

Re: The Uber Bubble

#37

The piece is exactly right. Uber is effectively an instrument to shift economic gains from labour to capital by atomizing the workforce. From a macroeconomic perspective this is terrible because turning taxi firms into countless of one man businesses provides no efficiency gains, it's basically reverse economic development. There is a version of Uber that actually makes sense. As a lean SaaS company that sells its so…

> a lean SaaS company that sells Uber's software as a service to ordinary taxi companies, takes a cut and makes a profit This destroys a lot of value. Most taxi companies suck for reasons independent of their tech stack. (The fact that they’re better post-Uber shouldn’t obscure the effect of that competitive pressure.) Moreover, having a transport app that works in most countries is a value add for such a service’s m…

> This destroys most of the value. Most taxi companies suck for reasons independent of their tech stack.

None of which Uber fixes? Uber is a tech company. Arguing that it's better than taxis for non-technical reasons is a bit absurd.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#38
post #4
post #2

Uber’s margin gains have not come from efficiency improvements but from its ability to unilaterally cut driver compensation by 40 percent since 2016. So much more cost-effective than slavery.

Unless you're able to show how Uber used violence or threats of violence to force drivers to work, it's not slavery. Even if it was the only employer on the driver labour market, it still would not be slavery — but it's not even that. In almost any labour market that Uber operates in, it has competition.

> So much more cost-effective than slavery.

The point is that it's not slavery, its cheaper.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#39
post #10

The real magic of Uber is that it allows drivers to convert the depreciation of their car into cash at a time and schedule of their own choosing. For the reasons discussed in the story, this may still technically be a net negative in the long term compared to driving a regular cab fulltime, but a) drivers find it far preferable to/cheaper than alternatives like payday loans, and b) many Uber drivers have multiple job…

I would be curious to see independent citations of these claims.

Talk with the driver few times? I never had a Uber driver who said they would rather have a normal job. 500+ rides.

Re: The Uber Bubble

#40
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a lean SaaS company that sells Uber's software as a service to ordinary taxi companies, takes a cut and makes a profit This destroys a lot of value. Most taxi companies suck for reasons independent of their tech stack. (The fact that they’re better post-Uber shouldn’t obscure the effect of that competitive pressure.) Moreover, having a transport app that works in most countries is a value add for such a service’s m…

> This destroys most of the value. Most taxi companies suck for reasons independent of their tech stack. None of which Uber fixes? Uber is a tech company. Arguing that it's better than taxis for non-technical reasons is a bit absurd.

> None of which Uber fixes?

Did you hail or call taxis before Uber? The simple ability to see where your car is while en route was game changing. Add to that ratings, embedded payment (“credit card reader broken”) and dynamic pricing and you have a dramatically better experience.

Post reply on HN