31–40 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe it's a splash of reality for those businesses that have relied on undercompensated labor and VC money to acquire market share.
Not really. They haven’t been doing that for a few years now. They are just going to leave the market if it becomes unprofitable. I see people complaining all the time about ride prices so the consumer doesn’t want this and im sure the people driving aren’t happy to lose the income as well. Who is winning here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tax labor correctly then, so that it reflects how much the government wellfare will need to subsidize. Simplistic feel-good minimum wage laws are creating unemployment. This is a perfect example.
Uber and Lyft can easily afford to pay their workers the minimum wage, it would however hurt their record profits and set a precedence that they would need to pay a living wage across all cities. Amazingly all other businesses in this city are already able to afford the minimum wage. This is a perfect example of a company tossing some of the lowest income members of society literally to the street rather than pay the…
https://investor.uber.com/news-events/news/press-release-det...
It looks like they made approximately 1.4 billion, with a gross bookings of around 37.5 billion. That would _seem_ to mean that drivers would get an increase of approximately 3% of the full booking price if Uber was a nonprofit?
Best I could find is that there are about 5.4 million drivers worldwide. So if Uber's profit was distributed evenly, each would get about $264/quarter? Without knowing hours driven, I'm not sure what all that boils down to. I suspect it doesn't factor in idle time, without rides.
Can you talk a little bit about how you came up with "easily afford to pay their workers minimum wage"?
But there is a big question that I have yet to see answered by any of these laws, but it is possible that all of the articles I have read just conveniently gloss over this part.
My understanding is that to start driving for both of these companies it is a fairly low bar. There isn't any interviewing and basically anyone could do it if you have car (basically, I mean I am sure there are other checks but yeah).
You also don't work set hours, you work when you choose. You may choose to work when there is a lot of demand, but that is still up to you.
So how do these laws cover if there are too many drivers out at a certain time if there isn't demand for them? Is this only paying them for driving people?
Not trying to defend how they pay people, but it always seemed a bit more difficult than just pay them a certain wage or benefits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would be even more mad if I was driving for Uber in those cities and overnight the government made the decision for me to remove that as an income option.
According to the article, Uber and Lyft made the decision to stop operating, not the government.
We know that Uber and Lyft are very much taking advantage of the drivers here. But there is a big question that I have yet to see answered by any of these laws, but it is possible that all of the articles I have read just conveniently gloss over this part. My understanding is that to start driving for both of these companies it is a fairly low bar. There isn't any interviewing and basically anyone could do it if you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think you're mad as a consumer, imagine all the Uber/Lyft drivers who no longer have any income because the government has made it uneconomical for their employer to do business in their city.
that is the dirty truth. All of those feel-good minimum wage laws are in fact stealing wages from those workers. Those workers were OK to work for those wages before the law. Now they have nothing. The result is now higher unemployment and use of tax-dollar to subsidize those people.
You see exactly the same thing with efforts to unionize at Starbucks and Amazon. Both companies will spend millions on union-busting efforts. They will close locations (eg[1]). If you have an idealistic view you may think this is a simple economic decision for the affected locations. It is not. It's to scare people in other places from unionizing out of fear of losing their jobs.
Uber and Lyft absolutely do not want their "independent contractors" being treated as employees or having governments give them basic work conditions and minimum wages. So they will try and use Minneapolis as an example to other cities.
[1]: https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/starbucks-unionize-clos...
We know that Uber and Lyft are very much taking advantage of the drivers here. But there is a big question that I have yet to see answered by any of these laws, but it is possible that all of the articles I have read just conveniently gloss over this part. My understanding is that to start driving for both of these companies it is a fairly low bar. There isn't any interviewing and basically anyone could do it if you…
Not that I disagree with your first statement, but would you also say that consumers are taking advantage of the drivers?
“Wage theft” what? It’s very transparent what you are getting paid and what the deal is when you drive for uber or lyft. Argue all you want for thinking that law makers should be setting special wages for specific industries. Personally i think they should stay out of it but man i would be mad as someone living in the city that these services are no longer available.
I would be even more mad if I was driving for Uber in those cities and overnight the government made the decision for me to remove that as an income option.
This is Uber’s fault, not the government’s fault for enforcing basic employee rights.