This is easy. If Uber driver does not make money, there will be less Uber drivers, so the fee will come up. There's nothing need to be complainted about.
Uber has been running TV ads in New York City that specifically say:
"Mayor de Blasio's plan to stop Uber will cost 10,000 jobs..."
So it's fair to have some more detailed discussion about what these purported jobs are.
Also, we live in a country that protects workers. We try to make sure they're safe. We try to make sure they're fairly compensated. Not everyone has the same degree of life and career flexibility of the average young techie. So even though this particular guy can probably go find another gig, "if the pay's so crappy they can just go get other jobs" isn't a universal solution.
In my experience the result seems to be more crappy cars and less "hip" drivers, if that's worth anything. I read the original plan the founder wanted was an instant "classy" ride. When I choose uberx I don't really expect it to be classy anymore, which is fine most of the time. But it has been something I've noticed. I wouldn't expect a driver to make nothing just to have a new car to drive for uber.
I've seen this line a lot, and I've never bought it. The only in result I forsee is misery, as more-and-more desperate people work for less and less of a cut.
Compare with H1b visa holders working for well under market rate.
This assumes zero churn. With how aggressively Uber is recruiting drivers, I would hypothesize that it takes the average driver a few (maybe as many as 4-6) months before they realize it is a losing proposition.
You have definitely NO idea what you are talking about. Chinese government can directly read all your emails and private messages from a Chinese internet company without any legal requirement at all, and leaves no record.
Let's skip the word "blame". Is it a fact that sick people is the cause for being expensive? Our company also had to increase premium because a few extreme cases last year, but the company did not identify them. The employees figured out anyway.
Of course, blame the sick people could be wrong, when the sickness is not caused by the sick people, like the one in the article. However, the implicit message in the title troubles me: it is always wrong to blame the sick -- which is not true.
It also has nothing to do with NCLB. Without NCLB, teachers were not helping gifted students anyway.
It is a stupid political thing to blame NCLB or common core. People always have tons of excuses for being lazy. Of course there are good teachers way beyond average, but most teachers are like average person need incentive to make them work harder, especially when they are protected by teacher tenure which does not exist in most fields.
> Without NCLB, teachers were not helping gifted students anyway.
I've seen reports of several district cutting programs for gifted students and specifically citing state performance measures adopted in fulfillment of NCLB mandates, which strongly focus on bringing up performance at the bottom.
"Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It's my opinion that music should not be free" - What a capitalist.
"For renters like Soni Fink, 91, the rules have meant she can keep living in the apartment she moved into in 1961. A move to market rate would easily eat up her retirement income, she tells the BBC outside her two-bedroom home towards the south of Manhattan."
Why Soni Fink, 91, is entitled to live in a two-bedroom home?
You need to learn about old age and how it effects the brain.
You take an alzheimer's patient out of their home and place them in a hospital or new home and you are effectively transporting them to another planet, it freaks them out.
Your home is your kingdom, she's been there too long to feel comfortable anywhere else. Its not idea, its not economically the best utilisation of a resource, but it is human.
I can construe an entitlement story on behalf of Soni Fink like this: since 1961, she probably put in enough money into rent that if it had one into a mortgage, she would own the place, with enough left over for all the upkeep.
The fact that she has been a tenant for more than half a century and paid into the building should count for something. It can be argued.
