Hacker News Reader

Comment by jon_richards | Hacker News Reader

>Uber/Lyft can literally only control their worker's schedules and availability and hours using positive profit reinforcement.

This isn't an acceptable situation because the workers aren't employees. Uber and Lyft can offer below minimum wage to contractors who don't get their "positive profit reinforcement". The contractors will then self-enforce employee-like behaviours in order to get a better wage that still doesn't have to be above minimum wage.

View on HN

And then a large portion of drivers who only drive as a secondary or supplementary income don't drive, and there is a supply shortage, meaning prices surge.

Minimum wage is the acknowledgement that supply/demand is not sufficient for wage control. Your argument seems more like an argument against minimum wage in general.

Yes, I also don't think that Uber/Lyft should necessarily be considered a means of primary employment.

You should tell that to the majoroty of (my Seattle) Lyft drivers that bought a Prius just so it could be their primary form of employment. From my personal experience it is only in the Bay Area that people use ride share as a supplemental income.

Another anecdote here - spent a few weeks in North Carolina. Every Lyft driver we got while there was doing it as a supplement to their income.

Also anecdotal, I've used uber in DC many times, and many, many, many times in Toronto. Almost every driver I have has was supplementing their income.

I've found that all of the Lyft drivers here (also Seattle) that start conversations drive as a side thing. I have no statistics, but it appears you don't either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com