And whose business plan is to use VC money to undercut existing taxi services and drive them out of business so that they can increase prices to a profitable point (and beyond!).

The "labor laws" you reference only exist to give taxi companies monopolies and provide worse experiences for everyone involved

*all cities

Yup. And now the founder is rich when he really should be in jail.

Sometimes Silicon Valley feels like the monorail man

Just don't look up what they're planning to build for the airport connection in San Jose...

Proper ride sharing would be awesome. It's love if I could come to work by using an app to find someone going the same way as me and getting a lift.

Public transit based rideshare is a great way to fill in the gaps of bus and train systems and to push them to fill their own gaps.

That is what I am hoping for. I don't know how many times I see an empty bus or would save so much time if I could just get from one local station to another instead of going all the way to a main hub and back. The ride share companies are collecting all this data on where populations really need to go. If we could somehow use them for last leg of distance, route bridges, and filling in lines that are over served.

I am not sure what exactly the best way to structure this but we do have policy experts so that is there job. Some form of public-private partnership.

Sometimes Silicon Valley feels like the monorail man

https://youtu.be/ToKcmnrE5oY

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.

We do have nationwide minimum wage. These companies get around it though because they drivers are "contract workers" not employees of the company. In every meaningful way, this is bullshit. It let's them not be required to pay the workers though.

Ok calm down beans on toast we get it. If you really care about the nuance of it all over the outrage factor... Well the Internet exists so all that info is out there just waiting to educate ya!

These companies bled investor money for years acquiring market share with their long term viability plan being that self driving cars were around the corner. They've been waiting to fire all the drivers but they got grifted by Elon types into thinking self driving tech was imminent.

They didn't think they'd still have to pay people. Those salaries were supposed to be a temporary loss leader

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.

What assets? All they have is debt and maybe some servers. I guess the app and brand has some value, but only to another ride share company.

They don't own the cars, they don't hire employees. We'd be left with an app? Some servers? We don't need that stuff to run a decent public transportation service.

love this idea. Wish I knew how to do that lol

Better off seizing taxis and the cars they own, but ultimately, why would we do that? Pass legislation to make them comply

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.

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.

Would hurt drivers and only the wealthy could drive… let me fix that too it will cut into all my profits and I won’t be able to overcharge common people as easily and simultaneously commit wage theft against the driver.

Hold out a little hope. Democrats have both houses and the governor. And uncharacteristically they're actually moving some shit though. We got weed legalization, a huge investment in housing, and some good public transit is in the works.

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

This is just a cab, with extra steps. You get a cab, you pay the driver no middle man.

sup Security Officer Peña

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.

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/...

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.

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...