[deleted]
Ensuring a Level Playing Field for Rideshare
11–20 of 40 posts
Re: Ensuring a Level Playing Field for Rideshare
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a former driver I have to say lyfts logic is accurate. Also, why should a company with less dispatches be subjected to different rules from those that don't?? That's extremely anti-driver.
The general logic is that larger players have more economies of scale so making regs apply to all makes it even harder on the small guys.
In general larger players can better spread (amortize) fixed costs to enjoy economies of scale.
Re: Ensuring a Level Playing Field for Rideshare
#13Stop calling it “rideshare”. The driver is a not “talking a ride” and “sharing” it with you. They are a paid driver. This is a taxi service — not a carpooling service.
Re: Ensuring a Level Playing Field for Rideshare
#14> Examples of this back and forth that have benefited drivers include Lyft’s pioneering in-app tipping and instant payments for drivers, features Uber has since copied. In—app tipping is the worst thing that ever happened to ride share services.
Yep, and it's entirely because of Lyft's regressive example, otherwise tips were already done for in the rideshare space, and probably on its way out in the gig economy.
Re: Ensuring a Level Playing Field for Rideshare
#15Stop calling it “rideshare”. The driver is a not “talking a ride” and “sharing” it with you. They are a paid driver. This is a taxi service — not a carpooling service.
You're sharing it with other passengers.
Re: Ensuring a Level Playing Field for Rideshare
#16> Examples of this back and forth that have benefited drivers include Lyft’s pioneering in-app tipping and instant payments for drivers, features Uber has since copied. In—app tipping is the worst thing that ever happened to ride share services.
My recent Lyfts have had a line included in their post-ride text message that says I should tip my driver to show appreciation for the ride. I rather pay a few dollars more for my ride fare to have the tip built in than deal with this social pressuring.
Re: Ensuring a Level Playing Field for Rideshare
#17I don't trust Uber, period. The idea of Uber gaining a monopoly on "rideshare" services in NYC makes me damn near sick.
Re: Ensuring a Level Playing Field for Rideshare
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
The general logic is that larger players have more economies of scale so making regs apply to all makes it even harder on the small guys.
Except in this case it’s the reverse. The larger players, which have it far easier in terms of utilization rate, are rewarded more than smaller players working their tails off to reach better, but not best, utilization. So it’s even worse than applying a single rate to all and tacitly advatanging larger players. It’s actively basing that advantage on largeness.
Are you saying the law advantages providers with over 10k/day and hurts providers with under 10k/day? I don't understand how that could be. The law doesn't apply to providers with under 10k/day, so they should have freedom to do whatever they find optimal.
Re: Ensuring a Level Playing Field for Rideshare
#19Stop calling it “rideshare”. The driver is a not “talking a ride” and “sharing” it with you. They are a paid driver. This is a taxi service — not a carpooling service.
Aren't you sharing the ride with other passengers?
Re: Ensuring a Level Playing Field for Rideshare
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except in this case it’s the reverse. The larger players, which have it far easier in terms of utilization rate, are rewarded more than smaller players working their tails off to reach better, but not best, utilization. So it’s even worse than applying a single rate to all and tacitly advatanging larger players. It’s actively basing that advantage on largeness.
Are you saying the law advantages providers with over 10k/day and hurts providers with under 10k/day? I don't understand how that could be. The law doesn't apply to providers with under 10k/day, so they should have freedom to do whatever they find optimal.
The utilization formula part of the law advantages each operator individually according to that operator’s numeric utilization score.
Imagine if utilization was like a credit rating and the TLC wants laws that ensure good credit ratings among operators. So they incentivize reaching a good credit rating.
One option could be to say, hey if you get a credit rating about 700, that is good for the people, so you get a tax break or something.
Instead they are saying, hey if the size of your business already makes it easier for you to build a high credit rating, then you get even more tax breaks than others do, giving you even more advantage over them.
This is not about the 10k/day part at all, only about how if Uber’s position as current market leader leads Uber to already lead on raw utilization rate, then the new law automatically rewards Uber with a labor price break more than the price break Lyft would get, and more still than Via or Juno.