Lyft and Uber say they will leave Minneapolis if the mayor signs a minimum wage bill for drivers::Lyft and Uber threatened to stop doing business in Minneapolis after the city council adopted a new rule Thursday that would set a minimum wage for rideshare drivers.
The joy of the big company moving into a limited matked, subsidise the loss until the competition leaves/folds and the people are left with the only game in town. Unfortunatly nothing new there, that’s pretty well the M/O of every big chain. In my state it seems there has been a Dollar General popping up in every other small town doing the same thing.
Probably a very unpopular thing to say: It would be interesting to see a middleman-free, decentralized version of Lyft/Uber where payments and ride-hailing are done with crypto and blockchain/smart contracts, driver ID’s using using DID’s, anonymized on-chain using homomorphic encryption. The hardest problem that I forsee with that tech is with dispute resolution. The idea stems from the opinion that the gig economy is great but the real problem (in matters not related to conflict resolution) is that the middleman takes a huge cut of the fare in exchange for doing almost nothing.
I’d be curious to see which would be more practical: a decentralized version of Lyft/Uber powered by blockchain, or an employee-owned version of Lyft/Uber where workers keep all their earnings and pay a small portion for administrative fees to keep the app running.
Admittedly I’m always skeptical of blockchain’s ability to actually solve problems. But maybe it would have fewer infrastructural costs? Who knows
Great points!
The reason I jump to recommending crypto rather than a co-op (I’m actually a libertarian-socialist and am a big fan of co-ops) is that, unless you make it impossible for people to be corrupt through public ledgers and DAO’s, they eventually WILL take the opportunity to be corrupt.
If implemented correctly, crypto can be harnessed as a technology that makes corruption IMPOSSIBLE.
IMO, it gets a bad rap because of bad actors and the public’s misinterpretation of the power structures of sketchy, centralized implementations of the tech (like Luna and FTX). However, a truly decentralized, open source chain could definitely be the backbone to a truly trust-less, truly decentralized version of this. If you really look into it, the more decentralized a crypto project, the more it can be trusted.
For me, the best trust metric that seems to hold strong over the years is initial token allocation.
This is just a cab, with extra steps. You get a cab, you pay the driver no middle man.
Not really! What about reputation score, etc?
You could actually say that about any business that accepts credit cards or digital payment at the point of sale. Try it.
Two points:
- cash-on-hand is a huge security vulnerability
- reputation is something that REQUIRES a tamper-proof network (virtually impossible without blockchain) and some sort of identity. If you attempt to centralize reputation (which would inescapably involve putting it in the hands of a for-profit corporation or trusted party(s)), you get gamification and a company that extorts people to get them to pay for positive reviews or to remove negative reviews like we see with Yelp!
deleted by creator
Bye have a beautiful time! 👋
sup Security Officer Peña
Good.
Fuck uber. Fuck lyft. We’d be better off if they didn’t exist. Destroyed livelihoods so silicon valley could seem like they were doing something and not just thieving from people.
But minimum wage = good!!! What happed!!! Hahaha idiots
Bye Felipe
Uber prices in some cities are absolutely insane. Seattle for example: Right now a ride to the airport from where I am is 13 miles / 25 minute drive. Uber is quoting $51 at 10am on a Friday. Minneapolis’ new minimum wage would only be $20.47. Even if the driver came all the way from the airport, that would still only be $41. Somehow I doubt all that money is going to the drivers right now.
In my city the government used a private company to build the rail to the airport and then have them exclusive running of it for a few decades. It makes sense to take a train from the airport but if you have two or more people it’s cheaper to take a taxi to the nearest hub and catch a train from there on.
yeah and fucking forget getting away from an airport or train station with one - I think it was like near $90 for a lyft from LAX to my friends house within LA. Only like a 30 minute drive too. Which, where I live a 30 minute ride is like $20 or $30 ish.
So the law works.
I’ve never used or worked for either so legitimate question for anyone who has worked with such, what’s the split on a ride between the app owners and the drivers? I should hope that the driver takes the majority since they’re the one taking the risk, time, maintinance, stress and all that. My general understanding is that these services tend to be cheaper than a traditional taxi but less regulated so I get there’s contention there.
Basically I’m hoping that the drivers aren’t in one of those ‘living off the tips’ situations like servers in resturaunts while the companies vacume up all the fees.
deleted by creator
Generally the driver gets the majority of the ride cost, but their earnings vary a lot by region/time. If you’re just asking if it’s a good job, then the answer is a resounding no. I did it for a few months a couple years ago, and I have a friend who has done it as his full time job for the past 6 years or so. No change that Uber/Lyft makes is ever designed around benefiting the driver. You can safely assume that any new policy is going to make you earn less than you were before.
At the end of the day, you are not fairly compensated for vehicle wear and tear, fuel consumption is not factored properly for all rides, certain arbitrary locations pay more or less and require unpaid relocating to actually land rides, etc. The best is when you take a 2 hour trip only to find out after drop off that you aren’t allowed to pick up new rides in that area and that you need to spend nearly the same amount of time getting back to an area you’re qualified to drive in. I think that one at least has been mostly resolved since I drove years ago, but you get the idea…
So sounds a lot like the world of a pizza driver, which I have done that. No personal interest in doing so since I have a solid thing already but the concept of the freelance ‘work when you feel’ being more prevalent is I figgure a net good for some people. Particularly I think of the retired and board, or someone who wants a couple extra bucks for holidays, things like that.
“Not allowed to pick up/qualified to drive there”? That just seems bizzare and pointless…
I don’t know if it’s changed since my last attempt at it, but there were two separate reasons for not being able to pick up at specific areas. I was limited to my state for pick-ups, but could drop off anywhere. I also live about 20 minutes from a major city in a neighboring state… so you can see how that breaks the system instantly. It was probably a related to a local law, but that’s just how shit worked.
The other reason was due to an airport agreement that I’m sure has since been undone. An airport about an hour north of me only allowed regular taxis. Lyft and Uber were not allowed to operate within about a 15 minute radius of their location. This, of course only affected pick-ups, so dropping someone off there resulted in about 30 minutes (15 getting out of the congested drop off area and 15 actually driving) of unpaid time. And that’s assuming that you can find a ride the instant that you breach the barrier. Which you won’t…
The driver certainly doesn’t take in the majority. There are a bunch of articles online regarding Uber pay, and it’s of course variable based on how much and where you drive. It seems that in most places it pays at least $20/hr, but that probably includes tips and is before car maintenance expenses (and insurance: most states now require a different car insurance policy if you drive for ride-sharing now).
My general understanding is that these services tend to be cheaper than a traditional taxi but less regulated so I get there’s contention there.
They can be cheaper than a traditional taxi because they handle all the dispatch back-end that traditional taxi companies have, and of course they push maintenance expenses onto their drivers. But their special sauce is in their congestion pricing algorithm, which hikes up rates during periods of “high demand”. I’ve gotten off of planes in the middle of the night before, only to find Uber doubled my fare to the hotel due to “congestion”. (In reality, I bet they didn’t have enough drivers at 3 am). So I searched for the number of a cab company and saved some money.
Taxi companies who want to compete with Uber should just band together and release a nationwide directory app that let’s users phone or text a local cab company that is open 24/7.
Uber was cheaper than Taxi services as it ran at a loss for years trying to out compete the competition on pricing so that it could get a monopoly on the market and get people used to their service. Now they are raising prices again how that most people are used to using their service and other companies are struggling.
Taxi companies who want to compete with Uber should take up more of Uber’s model, and have cars even beginning to approach the quality of an Uber.
In the beginning when Uber moves into a new region, they pay drivers well to get drivers onboard, and charge riders little to get riders onboard. This also makes competitors like taxis less attractive and makes Uber really popular, making it hard for the city to push back.
So drivers might be getting more than riders are paying, with Uber subsidizing the entire thing! If your city is in this phase, it’s great for riders and drivers.
Once they’re established though, and the competitors have been pushed out, and people learned that Uber is awesome and cheap compared to taxis, they start raising prices and reducing driver pay. To keep enough availability they need to hire new drivers, which means their quality standards drop, and they use increasingly creative strategies down to debt slavery (desperate drivers lease/rent their car - which can be their only vehicle and which they may need to get to work or exist in general in a car centric area - from Uber, at “very favorable” rates. But then they have to keep driving for Uber or lose the car.)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/05/uber-loan-program-debt
They also exploit that most people don’t realize the true cost of a car. They only look at gas, not the wear and maintenance of the car. And if you look at what Uber pays, deduct only gas, and consider the rest income, it looks like a good deal, while in reality they might be selling their car to Uber one kilometer at a time and working effectively for free.
As I understand it there isn’t a direct share of the ride price or anything like that. The amounts Uber pays to drivers and charges from riders are decoupled to the point where even way it’s calculated (e.g. actual distance vs. scheduled distance) could differ between driver and rider. The driver side fare system is different per city/region.
I’ve told two friends who were considering driving for Uber that it’s sort of like taking equity out of your vehicle (yes I know vehicles aren’t an asset really but for the purpose of this example it helps to think about their value as equity) in the form of lifespan and maintenance and putting it in to your pocket.
Oh no!
Anyway…
If y’all can pay a living wage, y’all can’t do business. Tired of this shit.
I see no down side here. Taxi unions existed long before Uber and Lyft undercut the hell out of them.
Those taxi unions had a monopoly in the areas they served (which was far smaller than Uber and Lyft’s service area) and their prices reflected that.
If Uber and Lyft leave there’s one thing sure to happen: a lot more people dying from being hit by drunk drivers.
This isn’t a good thing any way you cut it.
Wage slavery is an unacceptable form of drunk driving prevention.
You’re doing a terrible disservice to those people who were, and still are, actually enslaved by using that term.
Yeah but the comment wouldn’t be quite as snippy without the hyperbolic phrase.
dog what
dude there are like… other rideshare apps
and taxis still exist
and Minneapolis has an effective (for America) transit system
there are so many options in place before breaking the law
and if paying a living wage is not possible for Uber or Lyft, maybe they shouldn’t be in business
That all means nothing when some night in the coming weeks Joe 6 pack walks out of the bar after a few to many, tries to get an Uber, a Lyft, both fail. Looks at his car he was gonna leave there, and risks it.
This isn’t an acceptance of the unfair work conditions, it’s simply an outcome that WILL happen if the cord is cut all at once.
Honestly exactly this, if a business is impossible to exist without exploitation then it straight up shouldn’t exist, and if that means our economy can’t exist, it needs to be rethought so goods and services exist to be goods and services, and not a money making scam.
Oh no, there will be small local taxi companies instead of some random multi-million dollar corporations, how bad! And people won’t have to download their trashy apps that are filled with trackers.
I actually think the app was the best part of Uber (not necessarily the Uber app, but the concept). In my city it used to be annoying to catch a taxi; you either had to line up at a rank, or call and wait and hope that your taxi turned up. Apps allowed you to order a car to wherever you were - normally with just a few minutes notice. I rarely use either now but I believe that taxis have comparable options now.
I prefer apps too, but I don’t want to install corporate spyware on my phone, just to call a taxi. Thankfully both Uber and Lyft have pretty good web apps, and never have to let them touch my phone.
