Hacker News Reader

consider drivers as more or less rational human beings capable of making their own choices

Why? Behavioral economics shows us that many, perhaps most people have huge cognitive biases and make irrational choices. If this wasn't so then scamming people wouldn't be as profitable as it historically has been. To quote PT Barnum 'there's a sucker born every minute'; and while I don't feel like digging up statistics right now, there's tons of evidence that a significant proportion of the population is clueless.

Right, nobody makes totally optimal decisions all the time, but I wasn't comparing drivers to an inhuman standard of rationality. Perhaps it would be clearer to say that drivers aren't necessarily less rational than anyone else, and that includes the people calling for a limit on hours worked.

> It would be very easy to regulate the hell out of Uber and turn the unicorn into a donkey. However, that wouldn't improve the conditions that those in the economic class of drivers are subject to

It's a bit of a strawman to use the hyperbole; plenty of industries are regulated, not regulated "the hell out of", and very profitable too. Also, I disagree with the second statement; labor regulations have a long history of helping workers and still do. They enjoy a 40 hour workweek, overtime, safe working conditions, protection for collective bargaining and much more.

It's the places where these things are absent, such as Uber and their non-employees, where people suffer more. Of course, anything can be taken too far, but unless workers have real power and leverage, they will be taken advantage of.

It may sound like economics, but it's not coincidence that everything the right wing promote strengthens business and/or weakens labor. The economic rationalizations are post-hoc talking points.

I don't think it's hyperbole. If the reason Uber gets regulated is because it makes the rich feel uncomfortable sitting near poor people, rather than because drivers themselves demand change and back their demands up with industrial action or public outcry, then the created regulations will align with the needs of the rich and not the poor. In particular, you might see artificially strict selection criteria for drivers, preventing the poorest from even having the option of driving for Uber and raising the price of the service such that only the rich can afford it, or you might see the return of the awful medallion systems.

Notably, the profiled drivers themselves weren't demanding changes: that was being done by a paid lobbyist from a group that doesn't seem to be affiliated with them.

Equally notably, while Uber may be a little exploitative, it's nothing compared to 25 hours a week rostered at random times throughout the week for a hair short of the absolute minimum wage. Taking down Uber while leaving far worse alternatives intact removes an escape hatch for the most exploited workers of all.

> regulate the hell out of Uber and turn the unicorn into a donkey

These are the words used to describe a hypothetical situation of your own creation. It seems hard to escape the term "hyperbole".

Turning Uber into a glorified taxi company, compliant with all existing taxi legislation in every jurisdiction worldwide and employing full-time employees with fixed schedules, would either kill it or strip its value so severely as to make it a laughing stock.

I have no doubt that heavy-handed regulation could bring such a change. Commenters here and on other submissions seem to complain that such regulation doesn't exist, in particular that Uber doesn't employ full time workers.

Maybe I'm missing something. Help me understand what the hyperbolic part is.

But you just made up that scenario, and its consequences.

Also, each post seems to contain more hyperbolic phrases. I think they are obvious enough that I'm not getting into the business of listing them.

I'm not sure I agree. My idea of "fixing the Uber problem" is increasing the payout to drivers so they can afford a hotel room at the end of a 14 hour shift. This will directly improve the conditions of Uber drivers, at least.

This will do one of three things:

1. increase Uber's already sizable losses, causing the business to fail

2. increase the cost of a fare, leading to fewer rides and forcing drivers to find other employment

3. increase the cost of a fare, but have little impact on rider numbers because fares were already too low, making everyone happy

If it's option 3, then that's great. But if that's the case, why did Uber originally lower fares?

EDIT: should probably add that I support a UBI to solve this. I'm not suggesting that sleeping in your car after a 14 hour shift is good, or right.

It seems to me that if Uber is unable to pay its drivers a living wage, they don't actually have a sustainable business model. They have a business model that relies on regulatory arbitrage (avoiding minimum wage or other employee-protection laws by skirting the Independent Contractor line as much as feasible), externalized costs (letting the government pay for things like food stamps and housing assistance), and good old fashioned exploitation of the working class.

I mean, I understand that uber started because the taxi market was protectionist. But on the other hand, do taxi drivers have better pay and a better union? Often, yes. There may be a middle ground here.

(* note that this argument applies to a lot of the gig-economy jobs out there, including lyft, doordash, and so on, not just Uber)

The article gave pay as either $15/h or $19/h before expenses, and cited expenses as being roughly a quarter of pay. Elsewhere in the article, a driver's pay is given as $12/h after expenses, which is consistent with the other numbers.

Is that a livable wage? I'm not sure, but it's higher than minimum wage. Does it make Uber sustainable? I'm not sure, but it arguably makes it more sustainable than Walmart.

> It seems to me that if Uber is unable to pay its drivers a living wage, they don't actually have a sustainable business model.

Why does everything need to pay a living wage? Uber driving is so easy that there must be a sizeable population of people that are willing to do it for less than a 'living wage' (retirees, students, housewives who want to get out of the house once, unemployed people between jobhunting).

I do it myself a few times a week just because I like driving, even though it pays literally 8x less than my day job.

We allow our 14 year old son to use Uber all of the time for our convenience/his independence but we used Uber for the first time last weekend during a "staycation". Out of the 6 drivers we had, 4 of them said they do it for a little extra spending money or to break the monotony of their day job. One of the drivers was a manager at Verizon's corporate office. When I was single and if I had enjoyed driving and wanted to kill some time, I could have seen myself being an Uber driver occasionally.

I taught fitness classes a few times a week for years part time because I enjoyed it. It definitely wasn't for the money.

> increase Uber's already sizable losses, causing the business to fail

Or they will need to adjust and find another way, like all businesses do. Or they will fail and someone else will find a better way. That's what the free market is about.

It's an old trope that if you increase costs on a business, it's passed along to customers or someone else. That's not how economics works; businesses have many options, they aren't locked into their way of doing things (again, that 'free market').

One question I always have is, why should I care if Uber succeeds or fails? They openly disdain caring about anyone else, including their drivers and the laws of the communities where they operate. I care about their workers, but what does Uber itself matter to me?

> If it's option 3, then that's great. But if that's the case, why did Uber originally lower fares?

Subsidize with investor money to try to drive competitors out of business?

If you want to help these drivers I think they'd prefer access to an overnight parking lot and a community-center shower for $10 than a sleezy hotel for $100.

If you really came through with the extra pay I think they still sleep in their cars and bank the difference.