Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

lyft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#511

Post by lotsofpulp »

Auracle wrote: post #445
murph-almighty wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a strong suspicion that the Works Progress Administration may come about if Biden wins the election. There's a lot of bridges going into disrepair, new transit projects we _should_ pursue- not to say that everyone employed by this program is necessarily qualified to build a bridge, but if the opportunity is there I wouldn't be shocked if it drew unemployed folks. But again, "if".

Maybe it’s due to where I live, but I’ve never understood throwing money in to roads and the like as stimulus. Construction crews are already busy all the time, and a company isn’t going to hire another 100 untrained workers to tackle an additional project and then fire them again. I remember one local road being resurfaced during the 2008 stimulus that was perfectly fine before. It was just an easy road for them to…

There's plenty of long term work available that isn't a waste. Modernizing plumbing and sewage systems, running fiber connections to all homes, building public transit systems, etc. All of these would take decades and provide for long careers.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#512

Post by samatman »

el_benhameen wrote: post #244
rileytg wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true for everyone. I track my ride share spending and it’s significantly lower than owning a car. I spend less that $200 a month on average (2019 avg was $196). I’m in a unique position to do this, because i put myself in that position. i moved near my work and live in an urban area. even if it cost $400 a month, i would still do it this way. i read when i’m in the car, i wouldn’t trade that for staring a…

If you’re in the Bay, or really any other major tech hub in the US, you should also factor the increased cost of rent or mortgage payments into that calculation. I’m lucky to be remote, but if I moved close enough to SF or the Valley to spend only $200/month on ride shares to the office, my mortgage would at least triple. This would far offset any savings in gas/insurance/maintenance. I’m happy that you’ve found a go…

The reason rents and mortgages in transportation and commute friendly areas of the country are high is because those locations are desirable.

If one enjoys the lifestyle, spending less on transportation and shifting that spending to housing is a net win. That's how I did it, and for about eight of my eleven years in the Bay, I wouldn't have had it any other way.

I left the Bay in 2018 because I got a remote job and didn't feel like I was getting my money's worth from the city life. Pretty clearly, in 2020, much of what makes city living good is gone, but it will come back; whether that's a matter of years or decades is very much an open question.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#513

Post by bgorman »

AgloeDreams wrote: post #461
dmode wrote: post #231

I dislike Uber and Lyft's practices as much as the next guy. But I also believe AB5 is a terrible bill and will be voting in November to exempt Uber and Lyft from AB5. AB5 was written to impose a 20th century employment model to a 21st century situation. As such, the bill is distorted that it carve out hundreds of exemptions to musicians, freelancers, journalists, doctors, hair stylists and so on and so forth. A bill…

'Ridesharing' (Which is a hilarious term for the simple fact that the ride is not being shared, the driver is not intending to go to your favorite bar. ) isn't a 21st century situation or solution. It's not a profitable or a good force in an economy, it does not pay a reasonable wage for anyone to live on, it is not environmentally friendly unless done in large quantities of people,(which is called a bus). Ridesharin…

Why do you get to decide what a fair wage is, or what a positive force in the economy is?

Taxis are an obsolete service, Lyft and Uber are overwhelmingly favored by customers and businesses.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#514

Post by [deleted] »

ianferrel wrote: post #453
mcguire wrote: post #437

" As employees they would have to work set schedules and shifts, would not be able to work for multiple app-based companies and would have reduced earning potential — and many jobs would actually be eliminated. " ( https://prop22facts.com/lyft/ ) Is that something mandated by California? As far as I know, everywhere else I've been, work-schedules and anti-moonlighting are restrictions placed by the employer, not the…

I don't think it's an anti-moonlight clause, I think it's saying that you can't do what many drivers do now, which is sign on to both apps and wait for a ride to come in, then sign out of the one you're not serving. If you're an employee on the clock, you can't be on the clock for two different organizations at the same time.

[deleted]

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#515

Post by runarberg »

apta wrote: post #426
runarberg wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking similar gig in other industries, such as gardening, constructions, telemarketing and support, pet care, beauty industry, etc. The gig economy did not start with Uber or AirBnB.

Except now with AB5, those populations are at risk too.

I’m not familiar with the proposition, but lets say that you are right for the sake of argument:

Now we have two possibilities:

a) We could fight against it and try to get it revoked. Go back to the status quo where those workers keep working—potentially underpaid—without getting any of the benefits full-time workers rely on.

b) We could ask for a new proposal that would give gig workers these benefits and guarantee them a minimum wage.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#516

Post by ffggvv »

silviogutierrez wrote: post #497
fotta wrote: post #344

Another group caught in the collateral damage is people in wheelchairs. Paratransit sucks in most places and where wheelchair accessible Uber/Lyft is available they provide a much better service. This is an especially vulnerable population because it's not like a wheelchair user can just find a friend with an accessible vehicle to take them to appointments, etc.

A while ago — and I have no citations for this — I read it was easier to just pay for private rides for every accessible person than to make NYC and SF's public transportation accessible. Yes, in perpetuity. Considerably cheaper, too. Why then, go through the effort? Because they should be integrated into society like all others. I firmly believe public transportation has benefits beyond efficiency. Something about a…

yes let’s make all public policy based on your sense of poetic justice. and not numbers.

i know cost is just a number to you but that’s other people’s money you’re spending

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#517

Post by CodeMage »

Johnny555 wrote: post #313
CodeMage wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Voters in the US are already paying for healthcare for all I've been living in the US for almost 7 years, and this is news to me. As far as I understand, Medicare only applies to people who are 65+ years old, and Medicaid only applies to families with certain income (relative to family size). What did I miss? > The USA doesn't (generally) let people die if they can't afford healthcare (people may be driven into ban…

Anyone in the USA can walk into an emergency room to get treatment - the public is paying for that through high hospital fees and direct subsidies. Instead of waiting for someone with the flu to develop pneumonia and go to the ER because he can't breath, it'd be much cheaper to subsidize his visit to a primary care physician that he can go to before he needs a hospital. To relate a personal experience, I have a relat…

Okay, so it looks like I didn't actually miss anything in your arguments.

I think it's fair of you to point out that there are certain scenarios in which healthcare is not paid for by the person getting it and everyone else ends up paying for it indirectly. I also think it's fair of you to point out that it's handled in such a way that it creates a byzantine system that ends up costing us all a lot more than it should.

But that's a long long way from claiming that "voters in the US are already paying for healthcare for all", in the context of the current discussion. "Voters in the US are paying for a byzantine system that handles extreme cases that happen because of the failure to have a proper healthcare for all" is as far as I could go with your arguments ;)

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#518

Post by lefrenchy »

JamesBarney wrote: post #478
lefrenchy wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where the gig economy shines, when people want to use it to make extra money on the side or push to achieve financial goals. However, by your own admission you did it because you were "bored" and wanted to make some money. Unfortunately many gig workers don't have the privilege. I'm assuming here but you probably had another job and benefits. There are many workers who don't, and are turning to Uber or Lyft j…

> Unfortunately many gig workers don't have the privilege. I'm assuming here but you probably had another job and benefits. There are many workers who don't, and are turning to Uber or Lyft just to put food on the table and are being forced into working without paid vacation, sick leave, or benefits simply because they have no other options. These drivers who can't put food on the table without Uber(which I've person…

> No one is forcing them to do anything. They not only get to decide if they want to work, but how much, and when.

No they don't.. Their material conditions dictate how much they need to work to meet their basic needs (food, utilities, rent).

You're assuming that people who are living paycheck to paycheck, who are backed against a wall, have the option to pick and choose if, when, and how much they work. The people in those situations are the ones we need to work the hardest to protect because they are the most vulnerable to poor conditions and exploitation/coercion. Without protections they contribute to the race to the bottom simply by nature of having no other options, making them willing to work without benefits or for low wages.

> And almost all of my Uber and Lyft drivers had another source of income, were retired, were raising children, or had a medical condition that kept them from holding down a full time job.

This is entirely anecdotal, on top of the fact that "raising children" or "having a medical condition" should not be an excuse to be denied economic stability and benefits.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#519

Post by jjeaff »

ianferrel wrote: post #453
mcguire wrote: post #437

" As employees they would have to work set schedules and shifts, would not be able to work for multiple app-based companies and would have reduced earning potential — and many jobs would actually be eliminated. " ( https://prop22facts.com/lyft/ ) Is that something mandated by California? As far as I know, everywhere else I've been, work-schedules and anti-moonlighting are restrictions placed by the employer, not the…

I don't think it's an anti-moonlight clause, I think it's saying that you can't do what many drivers do now, which is sign on to both apps and wait for a ride to come in, then sign out of the one you're not serving. If you're an employee on the clock, you can't be on the clock for two different organizations at the same time.

>you can't be on the clock for two different companies at the same time

I mean, I don't see why not. Would create some inefficiencies. But I don't think there is a law against that.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#520

Post by nodesocket »

meatmanek wrote: post #488
nodesocket wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drivers choose to make their living with Lyft and Uber. California is starting to feel the repercussions of their far left policies. It hurts consumers (fare prices rise), stifles innovation, pushes entrepreneurs out of the state, and the irony is it ended up hurting the drivers.

Lyft _chose_ to hurt the drivers instead of complying with the law. This is a transparent ploy by Lyft and Uber to try and extort the state into changing the law by holding their drivers' livelihoods ransom.

Or perhaps it's basic business and economics. Lyft and Uber's business is built on the assumption that drivers provide on-demand transportation. The business model doesn't work if the workforce is not also on-demand. Instead of vilifying companies, perhaps it might be beneficial to understand the business aspects of decisions instead of jumping to conclusions based on knee jerk emotional outrage.
Post reply on HN