Since Uber is in control of the dispatch, do drivers trust Uber not to throttle the rate of their rides as they approach/pass the break-even point? Given the shenanigans they've pulled with geofencing around regulatory agencies, I don't think I would trust them, but perhaps if they do have a history of letting people hit the driving incentives, I'd be more willing to give it a shot...
This comment got my gears turning about good ways to split up Uber in an anti-trust case. One possibility is to have Uber A provide dispatch as a service, while Uber B collects fares, disburses driver payments, and provides the front-end UI. Uber B could also set up whatever driver incentives they wanted. Uber A would be a regulated monopoly, and would have to allow other companies to compete with Uber B on its platform.
In this scenario, dispatch would basically be a public utility, and drivers could trust the algorithm not to cheat. I.e. since Uber B and its competitors would be running any driver incentives, Uber A wouldn't even know about it. (And legally shall not know such things.)
I realize this is a half-baked pipe dream, but an interesting thought experiment.
> Uber A would be a regulated monopoly, and would have to allow other companies to compete with Uber B on its platform.
But since Uber B has the brand recognition (through its UI), the question is if there will be a competitor. Nowadays, it seems that consumers converge more and more on a single brand for any service/product, which is probably due to the internet/social media.
>Nowadays, it seems that consumers converge more and more on a single brand for any service/product, which is probably due to the internet/social media.
This only seems true (at least over medium to longer times) for certain classes of product/service, namely those where network effects actually provide real value to consumers. Many products have tried to artificially integrate features that would initiate network affects (for example niche social networks for fitness trackers) but they end up making the product less usable because they're not part of the core value proposition consumers are looking for with that product.
usually "free" products where the consumer is paying in time watching ads and the user can't determine easily how much the "value" actually has changed. ie. no ads --> lots of ads
so many stories of not getting any rides when they get close to a promotional number of rides. You can't prove it but they are very suspicious that Uber does it
They might be doing that, of course, but given human nature, I'm sure we'd see those stories in either case. Uber has a lot of drivers, and some of those drivers are bound to get unlucky and have this happen to them by pure chance. Some of them will get very unlucky, and have it happen repeatedly. Those drivers will understandably think that something shady is going on. And someone who gets struck by lightning five times might start to think that the sky has it in for them.
There's also a pretty obvious mechanism for selection bias here regarding which type of situation we're going to hear about. Few people are going to write up a post saying "I got close to my bonus, and then I got more rides, and I got my bonus, and it was fine", whereas people who feel like they're getting screwed tend to be very vocal. So the existence of these stories tells us next to nothing.
there's also a market reason why this could happen. Towards the end of the (synchronized) bonus cycle, more drivers are going to be out to complete their bonus requirements, so they'll increase the supply and collaboratively reduce their take.
Yeah that makes sense. Seems like something Uber would want to fix, and it should be pretty easy if they stagger the bonuses. I don't think having drivers pissed off about losing out on bonuses is really in their best interest, even if it saves them a bit of money in the very short term.
There's an important difference in both cases compared to what Uber is doing and that is that Uber is in complete control of whether you will get work.
Moreover, they have much more opportunity to do it since a strip club and barber salon have a lot fewer rented spots (ones/tens vs hundreds/thousands) and there is more ways Uber can be sneaky about it. (Oops sorry it took us 10 minutes to find you a passenger)
OH there's also the fact that Uber has the ability to arbitrage. Since the drivers who payed in are more costly to Uber to send passengers to than the drivers who didn't. Unlike the other industries you mentioned where presumably everyone has to pay in.
I have absolutely no way of knowing what is true in this case, but I will note that these kinds of observations even in the perfect absence of foul play are perfectly consistent with a number of well-understood cognitive biases.
Surely there must be some kind of statistical method to prove that this is happening, the drivers should start logging and sharing data so someone can analyze it.
This phenomenon is likely due to Uber’s incentives timing out around the same time, meaning many drivers are competing for less trips as promo end nears. It’s highly unlikely they are doing something actually malicious.
One of the problems Uber has is that their past behavior means that they get NO benefit of doubt. Can't get rides around city hall? Is it not enough drivers in the area or is it Greyball? With so many examples of unethical behavior like that now the coincidence/malice scale will always tilt to malice.
Kalanick and the bros did a hell of a job trashing the company reputation.
I didn't pay all that much attention to that particular bit of Uber scandal, but were they using that to actually interfere with Lyft drivers beyond watching coverage areas? If all they were doing was the equivalent of opening the app and seeing where cars were available, I'm actually less concerned about it.
Or even in-general just prioritizing "non +33% rate" drivers that night to maximize their profits (which is what a company is all about). Whats guaranteeing that the high rate drivers won't just be an expensive worst case reserve pool of workers when demand climbs?
There might also be another effect in play - as the labor market tightens, I think Uber is looking into ways of boosting the supply of rides from the drivers it already has.
This offer exploits loss aversion on the part of those drivers (once they take it up, they don't want to "lose" and have it not be worth it, so they might end up driving even if fares are low).
I do not understand the sensationalism. I think there would be reason to be upset if Uber decided to enforce a system where if you drive less than $x per week then y% of your nominal rate is cut. However, this is a incentivizing system, not a coercing system. In other words instead of punishing those that do not drive as much, it's rewarding those that do.
It's effectively the equivalent of a loyalty card availability in industries of all sorts. You pay $xxx for a card to get a y% reduction on transactions through a certain time period. If you engage in a high volume of transactions, it's +EV and you purchase it. If you don't then it's not +EV and so you don't purchase it. The industry operator profits in either case since their margins exceed the real value of your discount, and so it is win-win for them.
I think a key component of contractors' rights going forward will be legislating their employers' ability to "lock them in" with loyalty programs and the like.
"Ride-sharing" has started to become a commodity and one of the only options left for large companies to out-compete small ones is to have a locked-in supply of drivers. This leads to lowering of standards for registration, temporary incentives, etc. that I think are ultimately bad for the drivers and consumers.
Why should a driver have to decide whether to primarily drive for Uber or Lyft if they aren't an employee of either? If there is no downside to a driver registering for another company, it will allow competition to focus on quality of service, tech, etc. rather than simply having the biggest supply of drivers.
Maybe a driver has a shitty car, but can still register on every app except for the super-upscale one. Maybe a driver hasn't had a background check run, so he can only register for the cheaper sketchy app that most people worried about safety don't use. Doesn't that make more sense than this ridiculous scramble for a "network effect" capable of justifying Uber's valuation?
> I do not understand the sensationalism. I think there would be reason to be upset if Uber decided to enforce a system where if you drive less than $x per week then y% of your nominal rate is cut. However, this is a incentivizing system, not a coercing system. In other words instead of punishing those that do not drive as much, it's rewarding those that do.
First off, "reward high performers" and "punish low performers" are equivalent as long as both systems are explained fairly up-front.
But more relevant here is that a percentage change is much more defensible. The worst case scenario is still getting money per mile, but less of it. That's very different from starting off $115 in the hole.
> It's effectively the equivalent of a loyalty card availability in industries of all sorts.
With a loyalty card, you're in full control of how much you purchase through it. It's not dependent on the luck of the draw over a course of a particular week.
It's the combination of a flat fee and the random (uber-controlled, too) nature that makes this deal throw up all sorts of red flags.
I agree. This is just a way to encourage supply in a busy period by asking for an early commitment. Drivers get paid more for committing to work, and people get lower fares because of less need for peak surcharges. This is the market working. Nobody is forced to accept it.
If Uber is successful in getting drivers on the road in anticipation of high demand in a given area at a given time, they will not need to activate the surge charge.
I'm going to concur with the observations that the title is sensationalist, though there is some really interesting thought fodder in this. A key thing that doesn't come through in the title is:
> After I tweeted out the pay-to-play screenshot (Fig 1), Uber wrote to me to explain that the screenshot refers to a study in Houston that is part of a research collaboration between Uber and two MIT economists. They added that, “Further, drivers have to opt-in to the offer and there is a disclaimer explaining that if they opt-in they will be part of an academic research project.”
In some ways, the questions that are raised are more about the underlying research ethics (did the authors get IRB review? One presumes, but it's not stated either way in tfa), than about Uber's actual behavior. Or perhaps the question is whether Uber should be participating -- or what conditions Uber is imposing on the study to ensure that the drivers that accept are not going to be harmed substantially.
I talked to someone I know about this, and yes they got IRB review from MIT. It was 100% opt-in with informed consent and all the normal things required to do such a study ethically.
They're testing a scheme to ensure availability of drivers for Halloween. If enough people take the offer than Uber can be pretty sure they will work at the time.
I guess the problem with surge pricing is that it isn't guaranteed in advance, so drivers make other plans and then aren't around to pick up the extra rides?
And they're taking advantage of loss aversion too, not just desire for higher income.
That’s what makes this so tricky. Halloween and NYE are the two biggest days of the year for uber.
Every driver will automatically make 133% their standard take because they are Gauranteed to get strong surge fares all night. So this is like paying extra to make the sun come up in the morning- that shit was going to happen anyway.
I think the author is painting this in the worst possible light.
The UX is a little misleading but I could see this being an effort by Uber to pre-commit drivers as a means of reducing surge pricing.
What makes this potentially unethical (in my mind) is where the price is set. If it's set at a point where Uber's models predict the average benefit to a driver is $0 then this is essentially shifting the risk to their employees.
> I think the author is painting this in the worst possible light.
That happens with Uber consistently. The cab companies hate them with a white hot fire and there are plenty of media outlets who are happy to take a story from a PR flack, especially when it generates page views.
When people complain about surge pricing and then complain about things that mitigate surge pricing, that is pretty good evidence that they just want to complain about something.
> What makes this potentially unethical (in my mind) is where the price is set. If it's set at a point where Uber's models predict the average benefit to a driver is $0 then this is essentially shifting the risk to their employees.
But in that case why would anyone take the deal?
If they did that then the drivers would pay $115 to make back $116 (or $110) and then never do it again because it's not worth the risk.
> That happens with Uber consistently. The cab companies hate them with a white hot fire and there are plenty of media outlets who are happy to take a story from a PR flack, especially when it generates page views.
> When people complain about surge pricing and then complain about things that mitigate surge pricing, that is pretty good evidence that they just want to complain about something.
That's an ad-hominem. If you're going to claim people are complaining just to complain then you need to support your case that this sleazy pay-to-play scheme isn't a sleazy pay-to-play scheme.
Just because Uber is trying to fix something bad (surge pricing) doesn't mean their solution (this ridiculous scheme) isn't also bad.
> > What makes this potentially unethical (in my mind) is where the price is set. If it's set at a point where Uber's models predict the average benefit to a driver is $0 then this is essentially shifting the risk to their employees.
> But in that case why would anyone take the deal?
The first problem is that drivers have no way to know that until they've lost money on the deal. Uber has a team of accountants to figure out their expected returns while the average driver does not.
Also, as others have pointed out, there's a conflict of interest for Uber because they control who gets called up, so they can avoid sending rides to drivers who are about to cross the threshold for a payout from this scheme.
> If they did that then the drivers would pay $115 to make back $116 (or $110) and then never do it again because it's not worth the risk.
It's not that simple, though. Since Uber controls who gets rides, they can make sure that some portion of drivers come out ahead using this scheme. When other drivers claim they lost money or just broke even, the "winning" drivers can chime in that the scheme worked great for them. The end result is confusion and uncertainty, so that nobody outside of Uber itself really knows one way or the other how it will turn out.
With as many drivers as Uber has, they can probably fake it for quite a while.
> If you're going to claim people are complaining just to complain then you need to support your case that this sleazy pay-to-play scheme isn't a sleazy pay-to-play scheme.
It has an obvious benefit in increasing available supply. Once a driver has paid the fee they have 35% more incentive to provide service.
> Just because Uber is trying to fix something bad (surge pricing) doesn't mean their solution (this ridiculous scheme) isn't also bad.
Neither of them is actually bad.
Bad is the inability to get a ride during high demand because nobody is doing either of those things.
> The first problem is that drivers have no way to know that until they've lost money on the deal.
That only works the first time. After that the driver has their own experience to draw on.
> Since Uber controls who gets rides, they can make sure that some portion of drivers come out ahead using this scheme.
In which case only those drivers will sign up next time and the pool of drivers willing to sign up shrinks every time.
> When other drivers claim they lost money or just broke even, the "winning" drivers can chime in that the scheme worked great for them.
Nobody cares what other people say when their own personal experience says something else.
It's easy to trick anyone once, but then they won't trust you anymore. People not trusting you forevermore is an expensive price to pay for a one time payout.
Did you know that many people buy lottery tickets week after week based on their understanding that other people are winning, and not their own experience of losing constantly?
> Did you know that many people buy lottery tickets week after week based on their understanding that other people are winning, and not their own experience of losing constantly?
Because lottery tickets are entertainment. People with crappy jobs get to imagine telling off their stupid boss and moving to their own private island. The fact that it never happens doesn't mean people won't pay $1 to imagine it. Or for the feeling they get when the numbers are being read and the first two or three actually match once in a while.
There is nothing equivalently exciting about temporarily getting paid 35% more at work.
"I think the author is painting this in the worst possible light."
You should work for any sort of delivery or courier service. This 'worst possible light' is daily business for companies like Papa Johns and others that claim their drivers are merely 'contractors.'
This is also quite illegal - you can not pay to work. It's literal extortion - you have to pay us in order to receive this amount of wage. No, the courts frown upon this.
Would you agree that none of those people pay their employer in that case? I certainly agree salespeople pay for leads, but it is usually an outside party supplying them.
Correct, but I could go rent the cab for a flat fee and just drive it around for my own personal wishes if I wanted to. They might put some restrictions on it (don't drive outside the city, no interstate) but otherwise I'd be fine.
As far as medallions go, that is just the result of government regulation. Plenty of industries wind up being populated with nothing more than a bunch of rent seekers. The government sets up an artificial scarcity where there is none to control negative externalities. The fix is easy: require the license holder to be the one that actually uses it. No leasing to others. As far as I know, no one has done that for commercial licensing. Ironically for private licenses (fishing license, etc.) this is already the case.
> This is also quite illegal - you can not pay to work
You do know the offer is optional right? If a driver doesn't want to pay $115 for the 33% rate increase then they don't have to. Did you read that part? Also, many drivers could benefit from this especially if they drive full time in popular areas.
You do know that such an offer is illegal, right? It is literally "If you pay us, we'll pay you more later on." It's the actual beginning of a Ponzi Scheme.
Ponzi schemes are defined by the fact that you can earn some revenue but not enough to sustain the employees at the base of the pyramid while having some means to bring in new players who will help you earn enough to keep going usually by contributing some part of their income to you.
Its a scam because their is a finite pool of potential idiots and when you run out the bottom of your pyramid collapses taking subsequent layers with it eventually.
If a multi level marketing company actually provides enough wealth for the bottom level to function then it isn't a ponzi scheme.
Ponzi Schemes don't have customers? There have been plenty of "multi-level marketing' businesses selling things like perfumes, knives, even candle wax, and have been ruled as Ponzi/Pyramid Schemes. It's the exact same behavior - pay us to make money.
Almost every business has a pyramid structure - that's literally basic business management for all but the most n00b of startups. It's the behavior that defines a Pyramid Scheme and this behavior matches it almost 100% to the definition.
In fact there's a nice database of plenty of other companies acting EXACTLY like this and subsequently getting their butts handed to them in court - http://www.mlmlegal.com/legal-cases/Illinois_v_Unimax.php is one of my favorite cases to read because it very clearly demonstrates what Uber is doing here is illegal - just because you aren't required to do it or buy into it doesn't mean it isn't illegal in the first place.
So do Egyptian Pyramids but that isn't the relevant structure.
Do you really not understand how a multi-level marketing scam works? You pay to sign up, then you get paid for signing people up. The obvious problem is that this is recursive and exponential, which quickly exhausts the available supply of suckers so that the people at the bottom lose money because there is no one for them to sign up.
That dynamic is not at play here. There is no recursion. You don't pay to sign up and then get paid for signing people up, you pay to sign up and then get paid for driving people around. The people who get driven around don't have to sign people up.
There are lots of professions where you have to pay to work. Many trades require the tradesman to buy their own tools. A proprietor who wants to work in a booth at a fair has to pay for the booth. That doesn't make them Ponzi schemes.
"Do you really not understand how a multi-level marketing scam works? You pay to sign up, then you get paid for signing people up."
There are dozens more MLM scams than the one you describe, and in fact they're more prolific.
"That dynamic is not at play here. There is no recursion."
'Give us money and we'll give you a chance at making more money.' That's quite recursive, and in some states, it's in fact a form of illegal gambling.
"There are lots of professions where you have to pay to work"
No, you don't. If you want to use ANOTHER BUSINESS and their facilities to do your work, then yes. Cosmetologists can work right out of their own home as long as they have the relevant license. They don't have to rent a spot at a barber shop. Strippers don't have to work at a strip club - they can advertise on Craigslist and do private parties instead.
"Many trades require the tradesman to buy their own tools."
Some states require that if you require a specific tool or item for an employee or user of your services for the purposes of conducting business, you the employer or service provider are required to provide it. Here in CA, where Uber is HQ'd, we have that codified in law.
> There are dozens more MLM scams than the one you describe, and in fact they're more prolific.
"You pay to sign up, then you get paid for signing people up" is basically the definition of a multi-level marketing scam.
> 'Give us money and we'll give you a chance at making more money.'
You have just described investing, lending at a variable interest rate, all forms of commodity and currency speculation, universities, craft fairs, conference booths, commercial real estate, manufacturers paying retailers for shelf space, salesmen buying leads, the entire marketing industry, etc. etc.
> That's quite recursive, and in some states, it's in fact a form of illegal gambling.
The fact that you can do something more than once in a row doesn't make it recursive. The problem with multi-level marketing is that A has to sign up B in order to make money, but that requires B to sign up C and so on recursively, which necessarily means there is someone at the end who pays but doesn't get paid.
> If you want to use ANOTHER BUSINESS and their facilities to do your work, then yes.
A landlord who hires a plumber to fix a burst pipe will claim they're a contractor. So will Uber. So will the perpetrators of the MLM scam. You can't use something to distinguish cases when it's the same in all of them.
> Cosmetologists can work right out of their own home as long as they have the relevant license. They don't have to rent a spot at a barber shop.
Their house doesn't come from the house fairy. The fact that they also live in it doesn't mean they didn't pay for it. Moreover, finding one person who got a house from the house fairy wouldn't get rid of all the other people paying money for space.
> Strippers don't have to work at a strip club - they can advertise on Craigslist and do private parties instead.
Drivers don't have to pay to get extra money, they can just take the normal rate.
> Some states require that if you require a specific tool or item for an employee or user of your services for the purposes of conducting business, you the employer or service provider are required to provide it. Here in CA, where Uber is HQ'd, we have that codified in law.
Even in that case, you will still have people working on commission who buy items themselves which aren't "required" but increase their effectiveness and therefore their commissions.
Also, my employer requires me to wear pants at work, but they have never provided any. Are they in violation of California law?
You're attemting to make a very disingenuous deflection, so I'm not going to answer anything but this:
"Also, my employer requires me to wear pants at work, but they have never provided any. Are they in violation of California law?"
Apparently you don't read the law - the answer is yes they do if there is a specific company-identifying uniform that must be worn (like in the case of fast food restaurants) and they are not legally allowed to charge you for it - they must provide it free of charge.
Go read the law. Everything you've asked me is answered in it.
The higher rate is there to incentivise more people. The stable state is at the point where enough drivers opt-in that they all get to just the break-even point.
So A/B test employees ability to pay, but also control how many jobs they will get with your scheduling algorithm. You have just given the employee an opportunity to make less, but at a guaranteed rate. What kind of dystopian future is this?
This has eerie parallels to in-app purchase options in freemium games, wherein you pay X dollars to earn extra Y in-game. It’s extremely upsetting to see the same psychological hooks used by IAP applied to an already low-margin pool of drivers.
Also like in Duolingo, where you pay 2 "lingots" to place a double-or-nothing bet that you will practice every day for the next week. Most of the time I bet even though I know I'm likely to lose the bet, since it is slightly more likely I'll practice with a 'financial' incentive. Which is exactly what Uber wants to induce: early week optimism, then late week indentured servitude.
Ugh, that's a really disturbing strategy. Is this a common tactic for freemium games? I've seen "daily login rewards" type things which give you an incentive to play daily, but I've never before seen something that is an actual punishment for not playing.
I suppose "lingots" don't really have a monetary value, but imagine this tactic done in a game where the currency is worth some amount of actual money.
Duolingo is not a game, but a language learning app. One of the most important parts of learning a language is to stick at it. The payoff for taking Duolingo's bet is that you get better at the language that you're using Duolingo for in the first place. Whereas for games, the only real payoff for winning at them is bragging rights.
Unethical because guess what people who drive for Uber probably care a lot about losing $115 and will work their ass off: i.e. drive fatigued, perhaps kill someone ... to make sure they don't.
It’s an interesting point. In my experience traditional taxis are just as bad as ride-sharing taxis, and their ability to use bus lanes means they usually end up driving 80km/h+ through the city rather than be stuck in traffic.
I have noticed that drivers of car sharing schemes (where you pay per minute) are a bit eratic at times though. I’m not sure if that’s because they are inexperienced drivers, or just the mentality of “I need to rush, this is costing me money!”.
Where are traditional taxis allowed to drive in bus lanes?
edit: Googling turned up that this seems to be a thing in at least San Francisco, London, Dublin, Wellington (NZ), Sydney, and a few smaller UK cities.
I have studied behavioral economics. I think that not many people will take this offer for a number of reasons. The most important one is that losing 115 now and then having to earn it back feels significantly worse than losing 0 now and earning 115. At least that is what prospect theory predicts.
That aside, if Uber is a profit maximizing entity why would Uber offer this promotion if it isn't worth it for them? I'd be very very sceptical on Uber's attitude towards consumers .. uhmm I mean drivers/"employees".
I’m guessing they are trying to get more drivers on the road during Halloween and by giving them this promotion they essentially lock people in to drive during that time to make up the earnings they prepaid, and potentially make a bonus.
The author is not telling the whole story. Uber still gets their cut of each ride, the initial $115 is simply used as a hedge or insurance. If a driver doesn't make above the $349 for the week than the $115 is returned to the driver. Uber doesn't simply pocket it. If a driver makes over $349 for the week, they get the %33 surge, and Uber will keep the initial $115.
"As long as your weekly earnings exceed $349 you'll come out ahead!"
I believe you're incorrect or trying to mislead. That sentence implies that there's a strong possibility people can come out "not ahead" or, specifically, lose potential income on the arrangement.
Why would they offer this rather than just an "Hey! it's going to be a busy weekend and we want extra cars on the road. Earn $349 and get paid 33% extra" promo? There's no need to take the $115 if the driver can't lose. Let's not pretend that Uber needs the $115 for cashflow purposes.
I think the previous commenter is incorrect based on the wording shown in the article. That said, since this is part of a study, it does seem somewhat plausible that they'd do an offer like that just to see what the psychological impact was.
You are misreading he plain meaning of the words. Your interpretation also makes zero sense. How is it a hedge if Uber gives it back on failure to break even?
I love it. They're literally trying things that have never been done before. Look, at the end of the day, these drivers can just as easily 1) go to lyft, or 2) get a "real" job. And Uber can't afford for either to happen. This is pure capitalism, pure economics, pure financial calculations. We'll see how it works out, and they'll probably drop it at some point, but hell, let's give it a shot. If it's as "terrible" as everyone is bitching about, it won't hold up. What's your problem?
My problem is that Uber has a bunch of venture capital that it can use to entice and entrap vulnerable populations into an exploitative relationship.
It's only "pure capitalism" if one has a shockingly naive view of economics that ignores all of the preconditions that are required for a free market. For example, information symmetry, which is laughably not true given that Uber controls the dispatching with algorithms that are opaque to drivers.
As time approaches infinity, yes, I believe the market will sort out many issues with Uber. In the meantime, I think they have the potential to grind up and spit out many people.
You can't avoid being exploited by just "not being an idiot". There is a huge power and information imbalance between an individual and a company that has been used to exploit labor so much labor unions had to form to stop it.
There's no reason to add partisan flamebait either.
"Capitalism" and "free markets" are not the same thing, in fact they are in contention with each other. The natural end of pure capitalism is monopoly and exploitation of labor. I think you might have an idealistic view of what these words mean. Currently, both are on display in all their glory. You think Uber drivers don't know what the other apps pay?
Patronizing! Don't we produce adults who can make their own rational choices anymore? On second thoughts, perhaps not and I'm wrong. [ In 2010, a UK government study concluded that 1 in 5 people between the ages of 16 and 19 (some of the voters of today), were functionally illiterate and innumerate. This in one of the richest countries in the world. I doubt the figures look any better now ]
Your two assumptions are that it is easy to change your job, and that if it's exploitive and "terrible" Uber will stop. Neither of those are good assumptions.
Although I think I am on board with this being a really interesting experiment, even if it might become a morbid fascination it is definitely interesting.
Do you think removing the option of working for Uber would make things better for the steamrolled?
If so, then why are they choosing to work for Uber instead of doing whatever they'd be doing if Uber wasn't around? Are you saying that they're stupid or being tricked?
If not, then isn't the world a better place for those people with Uber as an option?
No, they wouldn't have worked as taxi drivers. Maybe 1/10 of them would have ponied up the money for a medallion (assuming some corporations didn't already purchase many of the medallions in the market to be able to extract rent). The rest however would have one fewer option.
Taxi drivers have earn like 30% less relative to before Uber, but there are 10 times more drivers that now earn about the same as the taxi drivers. That's a massive net growth of opportunities to earn money.
Actually #2 get a real job for a lot of the people that work for uber is not that easy as they are probably recent immigrants with no qualifications and probably poor English skils
It seems that Uber is frequently receiving bad press for practices that outrage a lot of people. The impression I get is most commenters on HN take issue with many of these practices. Yet at the same time, they seem to be one of the poster boys of the SV new economy. To me this seems at odds with the HN community. I'm curious if others find this as well.
I think that Uber is now a case of throwing good money after bad. The company is clearly going to fail, but so much venture money is at risk they are treated as if they're successful, or going to be successful. The longer the charade continues, the worse it's going to be in the end.
Google still has $3.5 billion in Uber. Like Softbank, they are hedging their bets and creating a market condition where they have more leverage to negotiate in Waymo's favor.
It is far from clear that the company is going to fail. In fact, there are more signals that point to the company's eventual success than it's failure. It's the quality of that success that is at stake, if anything. Not all successes are created equal.
All internal metrics from what I've heard are rapidly increasing with no signs of stopping. The recent negative PR doesn't really affect their core business and their operations are so well oiled at this point that even not having a CEO for a while really had no major impact.
Look, I get it. Uber is easy to rag on and they've bought themselves no favors through their past actions. But let's look at this objectively. There are many parts of their business that are unprecedented and to pretend we know how this is going to play out for sure is impossibly naive. For example, they even have a 20% stake in China's Didi and that's a huge piece of the puzzle internationally.
Ride sharing is here to stay, and the market will only grow. That much is clear. What Uber’s position in a mature market looks like is what’s unclear.
We legislated and regulated the old Taxi Cab industry when there was no insurance, bad employees, criminal activities, badly maintained vehicles. And someone can move in and laugh at the laws, and offer it for cheaper (Uber). Its only time until they die, or are regulated themselves.
I think there's another side to this: Uber is hedging the supply of drivers in a period of high demand. By asking them to pay, the drivers are effectively committing to drive in that period.
Sounds like an interesting idea given all the outrage with price surges.
They are basically running an experiment to force supply. It’ll probably be a 0 sum game for the drivers, with profits (in comparison to normal driving) if they drive more than $350.
No matter what the motive for this, it does not look good for the future. Uber kind of showed its hand here. What is the guarantee that they will not ask for a fee to get rides in the future? Or may be ask for a recurring fee of some sort as a privilege to drive for them? I know I am extrapolating too much here may be, but the path is there.
The difference is that your own workplace isn't charging you money. Imagine if your boss said "hey, there's a spot for some overtime work this weekend, the first person to pay me $100 gets it". Would that be OK?
Sensationalist title indeed, still interesting though. Based on the author's previous posts it seems he has a distaste for Uber. I am curious to know why views them so negatively?
I don't have any issue with this; it's basically just opt-in A/B testing. Better than other companies that force their A/B testing on you randomly. The conditions of the deal are pretty obvious, it's not like they're hidden in some abstruse legalese. The only potential issue with this is that Uber could manipulate the driver/passenger matching so that the driver doesn't come out ahead.
