Live data from Hacker News

$2.25 Lyft line rides in SF

blog.lyft.com

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: $2.25 Lyft line rides in SF

#71
post #69
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drivers' salaries can only go as low as drivers are willing to be paid to drive. That's no different than literally any commercial interaction. You could always volunteer to pay more, and the other party would probably be appreciative. Of course, in this case I think it's pretty clear that Lyft and Uber are subsidizing the rides and paying drivers much more than the cost of the ride. If wealthy investors want to pay…

This only holds so long as you believe the drivers are rational actors, and account for all of their own costs. From talking to drivers I've ridden with, most have literally no idea how much their driving is depreciating the car, nor do they factor in things like an increased maintenance schedule into their calculations. I suspect Uber and Lyft would continue to experience their current glut of drivers, even if the e…

I prefer the assumption that people tend to be rational actors who account for their own costs than the assumption that there is some group of people able to rationally prescribe actions and account for the costs of other people they have never met.

Re: $2.25 Lyft line rides in SF

#72
post #67
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some quick googling the Cato Institute are the only ones saying it's a myth. But I'd expect that from them. I'm sure the Austrians deny it, too. It's fairly basic game theory and strategy. If it's not empirical enough for you then Economic theory in general might not make the cut either :)

I don't know. The Wikipedia article is pretty short and sparse. There is a short list of "examples of alleged predatory pricing," but that doesn't seem to support the certainty with which the economic theory is generally presented. Even in non-empirical economic theory, the idea doesn't sound particularly obvious or sound to me. Obviously predatory pricing by a large firm can drive small firms out of business, but th…

I really wouldn't expect there to be a mountain of evidence for predatory pricing, it's been illegal since the 50's and if done properly it's subtle. It's just one of many tools firms have to duck and move in the marketplace.

Re: $2.25 Lyft line rides in SF

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me that the contracting model for drivers is illegal. Drivers choose their own hours, own their own cars, and don't have to be exclusive to either Uber or Lyft--many drivers drive for both more or less simultaneously. That's the most clear cut example of a valid, legal contractor model I've seen.

If working your own hours, with your own equipment, for one or two companies is illegal then myself and a lot of Hacker News are working illegally.

working almost 40 hours of week for only one company as a contractor _is_ illegal. In the eyes of the IRS you are an employee, not a contractor. But this is illegal for the employer rather than the employee in this case.

Re: $2.25 Lyft line rides in SF

#74
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming you mean Uber is after "world domination"? But don't fool yourself, Lyft is the same, Uber is just better at it so Lyft has no choice but to fight back with $2.50 to Uber's $5 bucks flat. This isn't because the company is "focused on the user", it's because the company is focused on the competition. If that goes away (unlikely for Lyft to see Uber go away) don't expect high standards.

Do you believe this because you know some inside information, or is this just a generic "All any company cares about is your money"-type platitude?

Companies exist to make money. Some don't say it outright and focus on the user experience, which brings more money (i.e. Apple). Others focus directly on the bottom line (Uber). There's nothing wrong with either mindset, but I believe it's naive to say that companies don't care about money. Without money, you can't pour it into R&D, expansion, or improvements.

Re: $2.25 Lyft line rides in SF

#75
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a lyft driver be paying SF rent? The notion that low income earners ought to be renting in extremely expensive neighborhoods is nonsense. If I can commute across the bay so can everyone else.

I'm a little sad that the entirety of SF is now considered "extremely expensive neighborhoods". What's your response going to be when Oakland also becomes "extremely expensive neighborhoods" (if it isn't already)?

Well I live a lot further away than Oakland. I commute from along the 680 corridor which is further than may are willing to endure, I think. Luckily there's still quite a lot of affordable housing in safe neighborhoods in San Leandro, Hayward and El Cerrito (to name a few), all of which are much shorter commutes than mine.

But the more general answer to your question: When supply outstrips demand the only reasonable response is to build more housing.

Complaining that driving jobs have low value isn't constructive. The value of those jobs will approach zero soon due to technology. Instead, address the economic imbalance and let supply meet the demand.

Re: $2.25 Lyft line rides in SF

#76
post #71
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This only holds so long as you believe the drivers are rational actors, and account for all of their own costs. From talking to drivers I've ridden with, most have literally no idea how much their driving is depreciating the car, nor do they factor in things like an increased maintenance schedule into their calculations. I suspect Uber and Lyft would continue to experience their current glut of drivers, even if the e…

I prefer the assumption that people tend to be rational actors who account for their own costs than the assumption that there is some group of people able to rationally prescribe actions and account for the costs of other people they have never met.

What does meeting people have to do with anything?

It's pretty straightforward to figure out what the costs are of an UberX or Lyft driver, knowing their car model and year and also knowing how much they drive. These are facts, and they can be calculated once and held to public scrutiny and review. There's no need for everyone to redo that calculation.

Now that we have something that can be calculated, we can move forward based on reason, without having to decide which of two assumptions we prefer.

Re: $2.25 Lyft line rides in SF

#77
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If working your own hours, with your own equipment, for one or two companies is illegal then myself and a lot of Hacker News are working illegally.

working almost 40 hours of week for only one company as a contractor _is_ illegal. In the eyes of the IRS you are an employee, not a contractor. But this is illegal for the employer rather than the employee in this case.

That's not true. Working 40 hours in a week is not a problem. A contractor can put in an unlimited number of hours if they wish. 20, 40, 80 - it doesn't matter.

The differentiator you're probably thinking of is whether the worker chooses which hours they work. If the worker decides independently how much they will work and at what times then the IRS doesn't tend to consider the relationship employment -- regardless of how much time is put in. This is precisely how these driving services operate.

If the employer is scheduling a fixed schedule, say 9-5 M-F, then the IRS considers it an employment arrangement. Regardless of the number of hours worked. But that is not at all how these services operate.

Re: $2.25 Lyft line rides in SF

#78
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you spend most of your life sleeping on public beds, lounging on public sofas, and public furniture? Eat most of your meals in restaurants? Rent your clothes? I'll spend some time in a hotel if I have to (i.e. far from home, no friends or family where I'm going), but I don't pay to sleep in a hotel or couch surf in my own neighborhood, nor do I rent cars unless I'm out of town. I own my own home, means of transpor…

Fair enough, I trust you on your own preferences, but car ownership is already trending down. More people each year are living in bigger cities. That's where ride-services are most convenient – and become even more efficient with a high density of cars and riders. And it's also where private car ownership can already be superfluous and expensive. Self-driving cars-for-rent will get you places both faster and cheaper…

Globally private car ownership is soaring, especially in countries such as China where public modes of transportation have long been dominant. Self driving cars will be great, I can't wait to own one, but I disagree that renting something that I use on a daily basis will be clearly cheaper than owning. Short term rents for similar quality are generally more costly than purchases or long term leases. Renting furniture and appliances is usually something poor people do in spite of it being more expensive in the long run, because as Michael Caine said, "Poor people can't afford good deals." One thing that's true is that people are getting poorer in America. Maybe that will force many of them into higher cost rentals. But I don't see the people on the waiting list for Teslas deciding that don't want one. A self driving Tesla makes it more desirable, not less. Cars are one of the major ways people express their sense of aesthetics and status. People don't have to buy Apple iPhones or Burberry clothes, but they do. The most iconic brands deliver the highest profits.

Rental cars carry costs that I don't have with my own vehicle: frequent transactions, additional liability issues, wasted mileage driven between fares, uncertain transit times, daily cleaning and inspection for damage, commercial licensing and insurance, middle men, management, marketing, accounting, additional taxes, regulations, and covenants. If I leave something important in my car, it's still there the next day. I don't have to worry about vomit in the backseat. I don't face a transaction cost and a delay (or the uncertainty of a no show) to go to work, to drive home, to hop in the car and go to the mall, or grab a bite. I can leave things in my car. I have less exposure to pathogens and pests from surfaces in revolving contact with thousands of strangers from all over the world, lower probability of exposure to cold and flu viruses, fewer vectors for bedbugs to travel into my home.

I can't see rent seekers (esp short term ones) being so far under my costs that after adding their markup, it will be particularly cheaper for me. The 5 year TCO for a Prius (staple of the ridesharing industry) according to Edmunds is a little over $18 a day at 41 miles per day, 44 cents/mile inclusive of insurance, gas, maintenance, etc. The average fare mile on the Peninsula for a cab is $3. I don't see ridesharing companies finding an order of magnitude in efficiencies and still delivering any kind meaningful profit.

Maybe private toilets will seem quaint and ostentatious, and we'll be soon freed from the tyranny of private bathrooms by happier times of public lavatories.

Re: $2.25 Lyft line rides in SF

#79
post #74
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe this because you know some inside information, or is this just a generic "All any company cares about is your money"-type platitude?

Companies exist to make money. Some don't say it outright and focus on the user experience, which brings more money (i.e. Apple). Others focus directly on the bottom line (Uber). There's nothing wrong with either mindset, but I believe it's naive to say that companies don't care about money. Without money, you can't pour it into R&D, expansion, or improvements.

Companies need to make money to keep existing, the same way we need to breathe.

If you've ever had a tyrannical boss, you'll see sometimes the company is just their fiefdom. Feeding their ego is their prime motivation and organizing principle for the company - not generating money.

Re: $2.25 Lyft line rides in SF

#80
post #74
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe this because you know some inside information, or is this just a generic "All any company cares about is your money"-type platitude?

Companies exist to make money. Some don't say it outright and focus on the user experience, which brings more money (i.e. Apple). Others focus directly on the bottom line (Uber). There's nothing wrong with either mindset, but I believe it's naive to say that companies don't care about money. Without money, you can't pour it into R&D, expansion, or improvements.

I still don't understand why people are under the impression that Uber doesn't care about its customers while Lyft somehow does.

I've watched a few of Kalanick's talks and he seems like a motivated engineer who actually cares about efficient transportation.

Post reply on HN