41–50 of 97 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the article, Uber and Lyft made the decision to stop operating, not the government.
It now costs you 100k a year in taxes for your property. You then move and everyone say its your fault because you don’t want to take a loss every year. Do i have this correct?
“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.
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.
“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.
If it weren't an oligopoly I'd be less inclined to endorse government interference in wage setting. I'd frankly rather the twin cities just spin up their own rideshare marketplace, they have a great carshare system[0], would love to see them expand into rideshare too. [0]: https://eviecarshare.com/
I suggest reading the report by the Minnesota Department of Labor [0]. Some interesting pulls from the summary: > Census data and the driver survey indicate the majority of Minnesota TNC drivers are male immigrants and predominantly Black or African American non-Hispanic workers with less than a four-year college degree; many live in low-income households (up to 200% of the federal poverty level) and, relative to all…
Whenever workers for a company are disproportionately reliant on public assistance, it means that the management has figured out a scam to get rest of the taxpayers to subsidize their business.
The taxpayers make up the difference between what is paid vs a living wage which would be required for those workers to sustainably work for the corp, and the management/shareholders pocket the difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the article, Uber and Lyft made the decision to stop operating, not the government.
It now costs you 100k a year in taxes for your property. You then move and everyone say its your fault because you don’t want to take a loss every year. Do i have this correct?
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.
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.
I’d be furious if the government told my employer they had to pay me overtime, and my employer closed up shop rather than abide by the same rules as everyone else. This is Uber’s fault, not the government’s fault for enforcing basic employee rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
this is the traditional belief, but all the empirical research on this shows that it is not true. https://www.umass.edu/news/article/umass-amherst-economists-... https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/01/30/w...
“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.
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?
But it's not wrong to blame the platforms either for their miserable business model exploiting the poorer and removing worker rights.