I'm curious to see how much traffic improves if you took Lyft and Uber off the roads. I know that they did studies in NYC around this and the impact was quite detrimental. And the increased traffic had an impact on air quality as well. I know in some cities, they've said that ride sharing accounts for 15% of all traffic and that traffic can be disproportionately felt in certain areas where the percentage is much higher. Uber and Lyft solved a utilization problem (we really only use our cars for a fraction of the day so they found ways to increase utilization of existing assets) but there's no way to make it financially viable. Even while paying their "contractors" poorly, there's no evidence of real long term financial viability. After deducting Uber's fees as well as FICA self-employment taxes, drivers make $10 an hour (and that's without any benefits). That is actually less than minimum wage in several parts of the US (and way below the living wage in a place like LA or San Francisco). And yet despite paying their employees (err contractors) below minimum wage, Uber and Lyft aren't close to turning a profit anytime soon. You can only trade on "growth" for so long. Food delivery companies have this same problem.
So you want to direct this to the one person who actually said it or act like its a consensus of opinion?
The other advantage Is that most drivers work as contractors for both companies I seriously doubt If they were forced to be regular employees that they work with the rival
The covid nightmare aside, we really need to focus on improving public transport, as well as making our cities more pedestrian and biker friendly. Improves air quality, lowers road deaths, improves physical health, and is a gigantic financial relief for the poor/working class.
Autonomous vehicles aren't a secret and tons of companies are investing in that stuff. The problem is that the math around using autonomous vehicles as taxis hasn't been proven. With autonomous vehicle taxis you are getting rid of the driver but you are gaining the cost of purchasing a fleet of vehicles as well as managing vehicle maintenance. And this has to repeated in every city and market you want to operate in. The capital investment becomes astronomical. Uber and Lyft exist because drivers already have cars. There's no major capital investment required by Uber and Lyft (other than the cost of recruiting new drivers). That's what allowed them to grow so quickly and that growth is what allowed investors to overlook their awful earnings. The moment those companies move to autonomous vehicles, they better have a financial strategy that starts delivering a profit. Unlike the current iteration of Uber/Lyft, this new model would involve the company taking all of the risk (rather than offloading risk onto drivers). This is also why Tesla would never get into the taxi game. There's way too much risk involved given the required investment.
This is ridiculous. Driving for Uber/Lyft is certainly not a long term career choice, regardless if someone think otherwise. The only legal qualification you need is a drivers license. They give these out to 16 year olds. Many people drive for them for the flexibility. Maybe they just need to make 30 bucks to pay for their kids lunch for the week. So mom runs out for an hour and a half. No commitment. quick flexible money. This is what the network leeches on. W/out it, the network doesnt exist nor does your cheap taxi service.
Good lord. How can Uber afford to pay people when people aren't riding. A lot of jobs do use contractors so they can send people home when there's no work. There is a reason minimum qage is hourly and unfortunately sometimes there isnt enough work to keep people on the clock. I don't know how ride share drivers are paid but i do know when no one's in the car they aren't working and the company isn't making money
This has nothing to do with ... anything. Here are the three tests Uber has to meet to classify its labor as contractors. It must meet ALL of these requirements: The worker is free from the control and direction of the company in connection with performing the work, both in reality and under the terms of the relevant contract. The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the company’s business. The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work being performed for the company. You could maybe make an argument for #1. You certainly can't for #2 and #3.
Okay, i apologize i didn't know they didn't want to pay unemployment taxes. I still don't understand that as people are labeled contractors when they work for a staffing agency. Is the issue they are paid on 1099 rather than W4's? If so i can understand that's the state's issue but the overwhelming issue is they can work when they want. Even the temp service guy has to show up.
I dont care what the technicalities are, they aren't jobs. Uber and Lyft aren't employers, they put people together. They are sharing in the fee.
Yes - companies paying people as contractors when they are treated as employees is a huge labor problem in general (well beyond Uber/Lyft). It lets these companies avoid everything from paying SS/Medicare taxes to avoiding paying for health insurance. There are very strict guidelines you have to meet to classify people as contractors, and ridesharing companies don't remotely meet the guidelines in CA. This law went into effect a while back. Uber and Lyft just chose to ignore it, and now they are throwing a fit at the last minute because the courts didn't go along with them. This is the same whininess they displayed in Austin and other cities when they mandated the same fingerprinting and background checks as cab companies. Like Austin did before the state intervened, the world will move on if they leave CA - other companies will simply take their place.
This isn't true. They also dictate who can work for them, the quality of car you have to have, how they have to treat customers, how much to charge, etc. These aren't just independent drivers that can do whatever they want where Uber is just a middleman connecting them to customers.
Those rules don't make them employees. They are for the rider ro be safe. The car quality rules arent strict and wouldn't you the think companies can demand the cars are reliable and reasonably comfortable?
Believe me i understand the 1099 bs. I worked for a company a couple of weeks in an office environment doon a 1099 doiing degreed work. I never understood how that worked but the pay was ok so whatever
@Major Is the 1099 the overwhelming issue? Thats federal. I mean why does California feel the need to pay Uber drivers unemployment insurance? How would that work? Uber can't fire you regardless if they're employees or not
