Hacker News Reader

Seattle has the authority to change the conditions of employment - how much less Uber pays in exchange for the flexibility. Uber/Lyft has a right to stop operating there if they don't like it.

Why would Uber/Lyft fight so hard to stay with unfavorable conditions?

View on HN

Some amount of ride sharing works under arbitrarily unreasonable conditions. Making $1 is better than making $0. But it's not as good, for multiple parties, as the alternative where they make a million dollars, more drivers have work, more passengers can afford rides and the existing passengers (many of which are also lower income people) pay less for them.

Exactly. The only question here is can Uber/Lyft operate in an npv positive manner under these new regulations? If so, then they will and the regs hurt their margins in order to serve workers and that’s fine. If not, they’ll leave, and these people won’t have driving as a source of income.

They could continue to operate but with less drivers, fewer hours worked, and fewer total dollars being paid out to their employees. Thus hurting the employees, anyone who relies on ubers, and the companies while benefiting a subset of drivers who will make more money per hour.

Precisely. They could do that, they only will do that if the returns from doing so exceed their cost of capital.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com