Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnloeber | Hacker News Reader

Remember that Uber subverts the traditional employee model. Drivers are contractors, responsible for their own hourly wage. Sometimes they will earn below the minimum wage, and at other times, well above it.

In the areas where Uber is prominent, it's hard for low-skilled workers to find any employment at all. Consequently, some of them turn to Uber. This means that no matter how bad the wage, Uber has a ready supply of drivers.

It's extremely important for Uber to make Uber a cost-effective alternative to driving or public transit. The drivers are less important to Uber -- both in the short and in the long run (automated cars), the drivers are the expendable part of the equation.

(However, do note that under certain circumstances, Uber subsidizes the drivers: sometimes they are paid more than the passenger is charged.)

View on HN

The drivers are less important to Uber -- both in the short and in the long run (automated cars), the drivers are the expendable part of the equation.

Oh bullshit. The drivers are the face of the company. As in clean cars, professionally dressed, courteous. The only thing separating uber from a DC taxi is the app and the driver. I've had many good rides with uber drives who all said it paid more than their last gig. But already they were shopping around for other ride sharing apps that paid even more. Uber loses its drivers people use lyft.

And what's with the automated cars crap? It seems everyone is an expert and has a timeline on when they are going to rollout. 3 years, years, etc. is it an eventuality? Yes. But I wouldn't make business plans around it just yet.

> Clean cars, professionally dressed, courteous. The only thing separating uber from a DC taxi is the app and the driver.

No. People will always trade personal comfort for convenience and price. Look at airlines. Back in the 70s, a flight was a great pleasure. Then the airlines were deregulated. As it turned out, people didn't care nearly as much about their legroom and on-board meals as they cared about price. That's why nowadays, flying coach is generally uncomfortable, but also cheap.

And in that regard, Uber has a huge advantage: UberX is much cheaper than a taxi. In Chicago, a taxi+tip costs about 3x more than UberX (with Pool). It's similar in many other cities. That's the big advantage that UberX has on taxis.

Indeed, Uber's pricing is getting competitive with public transit -- in Chicago, UberX (Pool) is only 2x or 3x more expensive than public transit for a given distance, but much more comfortable (regardless of the niceness of the car) and much faster than public transit.

For UberX, the drivers and cars could be awful. It wouldn't matter. What matters is that UberX occupies a sweet spot in terms of pricing and speed that neither taxis nor public transit can match. Consumers value pricing and speed far above comfort.

I don't deal in absolutes and most people don't. People will chose the best option based on a range of factors. Some people will put up with cheap uncomfortable flights for a few hours, <4. They are more concerned with getting to their destination. Some people won't fly with Easyjet or Ryanair at all. You'll notice there are no long haul low-cost airlines. The cheap airlines would have to supply things like food and water. The sort of things that cost money.

I've never taken UberX in Chicago. I have used it in London, Paris, NYC and they were no cheaper than a taxi. In fact they were a little more in Paris. But I knew that going in because I chose comfort over price (and speed, UberX isn't allowed to use the bus lanes, yet).

Consumers value pricing and speed far above comfort.

I'm sorry, you keep coming back to this conclusion but none of the evidence you've presented holds up. Except in rare cases, Uber is more expensive than a taxi yet people chose them anyway. So people value comfort just as much as price. In fact when people talk about why they use Uber price is rarely the factor. typically they've had bad experiences with taxis.

> I have used it in London, Paris, NYC and they were no cheaper than a taxi.

I used Uber extensively in London this January. I actually found that for long distances, taxis were about 3-4x the price of an UberX (with Pool). London taxis are very expensive.

In NYC, Uber had a long-standing $5-for-anywhere-in-Manhattan offer. I lived there for a few months, and found Uber and Lyft to generally be significantly cheaper than taxi+tip, even disregarding promotions.

Finally, there was a good article on this topic by BusinessInsider at http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-vs-taxi-pricing-by-city-.... It indicates that Uber is generally cheaper than taxi, but that's as of 2014. With UberPool, prices have dropped significantly further yet.

I conclude that UberX/UberPool is generally significantly cheaper than a taxi, and more convenient except in areas where you can easily hail a cab off the street. Looking at the history of consumer goods and transportation, I think that those factors significantly trump comfort.

> Drivers are contractors, responsible for their own hourly wage. Sometimes they will earn below the minimum wage, and at other times, well above it.

Aren't all taxi drivers in most cities of the world also self-employed? Even with brand-name services, they just pay a fee to the taxi company to use their logo and dispatch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com