101–110 of 119 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, which is why it's confusing that my mom had two drivers reject her the last time she needed to get to the airport when I wasn't able to give her a ride to JFK.
Why don't drivers want to go to the airport?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>during times of low demand, Uber/Lyft/etc. are forced to simply boot off a bunch of drivers so that there are enough fares left for the remaining drivers so they will be able to make minimum wage. You are claiming a false binary. They could hire drivers as employees. Or work together as an industry to make things work out, the same way they cooperate to oppose any legislation that threatens profits or promises worke…
>You are claiming a false binary. They could hire drivers as employees. Isn't that what's essentially happening today? They're forced to "hire drivers as employees" (insofar as being guaranteed pay even if there's no work to be done), and the results were predictable: the firms simply refuse to hire all the drivers. Previously they were willing to take on anyone they can, because they didn't have to pay for them even…
The key differentiator for an independent contractor is they choose what work to take, and when.
Truly independent contractors would be able to access and accept jobs via Uber, from any client, whenever they wanted.
Uber and Lyft are trying to eat their cake and have it, too: saying, "you're independent contractors [and thus have full control of what work to take and when]", but then turning around and saying, "_actually_, we need you to work only these jobs, only within these hours, for the good of only the company", which obviously makes them employees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Uber could certainly throw additional tech at this problem, but, realistically, the problem is the fault of NYC, not Uber. If NYC got rid of their antiquated laws, this would be a non-issue, and, rides would likely be cheaper and easier to obtain. No, you've got it ass-backwards. It's Uber's job to provide the best customer experience given their constraints, it's not NYC's job to bend over backwards to adapt its l…
>No, you've got it ass-backwards. It's Uber's job to provide the best customer experience given their constraints, it's not NYC's job to bend over backwards to adapt its laws to Uber's model. >The problem is the fault of Uber. Are you claiming that the government can do no wrong regardless of what laws they pass?
I'm not claiming that, but I agree it is an Uber problem. Uber chose to enter this market knowing the rules in advance. They didn't petition the system to get an exception to operate as they wanted, they just "disrupted" and did what they wanted operating under the ask for forgiveness not permission mindset. If you're not going to play by the rules, you don't get to cry to your mummy about the rules being unfair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>No, you've got it ass-backwards. It's Uber's job to provide the best customer experience given their constraints, it's not NYC's job to bend over backwards to adapt its laws to Uber's model. >The problem is the fault of Uber. Are you claiming that the government can do no wrong regardless of what laws they pass?
> Are you claiming that the government can do no wrong regardless of what laws they pass? I'm not claiming that, but I agree it is an Uber problem. Uber chose to enter this market knowing the rules in advance. They didn't petition the system to get an exception to operate as they wanted, they just "disrupted" and did what they wanted operating under the ask for forgiveness not permission mindset. If you're not going…
but the law in question (ie. the one mandating minimum pay for workers) were passed in 2023, well after they entered the market? Moreover, despite all the vague gesturing that they broke some sort of existing law, I'm not aware of any successful lawsuits against them[1]. At best you could argue that the broke the spirit of the regulations.
[1] from wikipedia: Taxi companies sued Uber in numerous American cities, alleging that Uber's policy of violating taxi regulations was a form of unfair competition or a violation of antitrust law.[80] Although some courts did find that Uber intentionally violated the taxi rules, Uber prevailed in every case, including the only case to proceed to trial.[81]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but the UK has the NHS, it's not possible in the US where employees have to healthcare benefits by federal mandate. You can't have an employee on the payroll costing $1,500 a month in benefits who can choose to work 0 hours in a month.
I think you are missing a part of the Federal Healthcare Insurance Mandate (part of the ACA): the mandate is on the worker, not the employer. Many employers have no insurance benefits for their employers. And then the other part of it: the penalty for not having healthcare insurance was deducted to $0 at the end of 2018. So there is currently no penalty at all (other than the massive ones if you get sick) to not carr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You are claiming a false binary. They could hire drivers as employees. Isn't that what's essentially happening today? They're forced to "hire drivers as employees" (insofar as being guaranteed pay even if there's no work to be done), and the results were predictable: the firms simply refuse to hire all the drivers. Previously they were willing to take on anyone they can, because they didn't have to pay for them even…
If the company is dictating the terms of what work they take and when, that makes the workers employees. The key differentiator for an independent contractor is they choose what work to take, and when. Truly independent contractors would be able to access and accept jobs via Uber, from any client, whenever they wanted. Uber and Lyft are trying to eat their cake and have it, too: saying, "you're independent contractor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're being unreasonably pedantic. What does it matter whether it's technically a "subway" train or a train that is not technically a "subway" but works the same? The point is, you can take the train to two of NYC's three major airports. (And no, AirTrains are not buses. That's a bizarre and false thing to say. They're trains.)
The difference is that the subway is the main transit mode. OP is very reasonably complaining that every reasonable public transit option to NYC airports is multi agency and multi modal.
This is especially because airports are frequently further out from a city than the subway system goes -- you need light rail.
But the A train is a subway that actually connects directly to the AirTrain which goes around the terminals at JFK.
So I don't think it's a reasonable complaint that you have to connect to an AirTrain that goes around the terminals, or that getting to Newark requires NJ Transit instead of MTA. This is entirely normal.
Also, the subway is not "the main" transit mode. For a huge proprotion of people in the metropolitan area, they rely just as much on NJ Transit, PATH, LIRR, and even Metro-North.
LaGuardia is honestly the only one that's annoying, because the connecting bus is more annoying.
Like it or not, in the current US Capitalist's Environment (as opposed to some mythical earlier time when corporations were supposed to have some social responsibility), in this current environment, Humans are a Commodity. If there is a human surplus, the cost(pay) goes down. If there is a human shortage, the price(pay) goes up. When there are fewer desperate humans needing Uber to eat, and Uber can't find drivers, t…
>Like it or not, in the current US Capitalist's Environment (as opposed to some mythical earlier time when corporations were supposed to have some social responsibility), in this current environment, Humans are a Commodity. Is that supposed to be bad? "Commodity" just means something that could be bought and sold. Is it bad that I can buy people's time, or that I can sell my time? Was it better in communism where you…
I simply explained what a market is.
I guess even not having the correct 'stringent tone' in favor of capitalism can make you a communist now. It is super hard to tell, not the first time I've simply explained a free market and been called a communist. It's almost like you have to express cult like warship for the 'idea' of a free market or you are communist.
"buy people's time"
Sounds so benign, but from the thread, I think it was pretty clear that we aren't just talking time. Some of the other examples used are really about "people so desperate they would do anything", which is also as you say not "bad", lives are "just something that could be bought and sold".
Again, I'm not saying anything in favor of communism. I'm just outlining a market. Companies are people right? Time is money, life is time. Desperate times call for desperate measures, all's fair, and on and on.
Lets not be all pro-free-market, then clutch our pearls when it leads to some questionable choices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't drivers want to go to the airport?
If you didn't have to go to the airport, would you want to go? Taking a single rider to the airport chews up a lot of time OR you can possibly pick up multiple shorter rides in the same span of time without having to deal with an airport.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you didn't have to go to the airport, would you want to go? Taking a single rider to the airport chews up a lot of time OR you can possibly pick up multiple shorter rides in the same span of time without having to deal with an airport.
But there are ALWAYS people looking for rides to AND from the airport. And they're generally good long rides.