[HN Gopher] Uber Is Locking Out NYC Drivers Mid-Shift to Lower M...
___________________________________________________________________
Uber Is Locking Out NYC Drivers Mid-Shift to Lower Minimum Pay
Author : aspenmayer
Score : 67 points
Date : 2024-06-24 19:10 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| aspenmayer wrote:
| https://archive.is/x5Ywo
| elmerfud wrote:
| "...making it difficult for drivers to plan work shifts and treat
| Uber as a full-time job."
|
| So which is it they want flexible gig work that they can do at
| their own schedule in their own pace, or do they want planned
| work shifts in a full-time job. It seems what drivers are really
| asking for his money without any work. Because taking flexible
| gig work means you have the flexibility to work when you want
| without planning. So why wouldn't your employer also demand that
| same flexibility to say too many gig workers we're going to kick
| some of you out and you can't get back in.
|
| It seems to me that this is just the nature of what we call "day
| laborers". I know the "on an iPhone" phenomenon people think this
| idea of day labor or gig work is new. It's not it's been around
| since the beginning of time. Day laborers show up at a certain
| spot people who need day laborers show up at that spot pick who
| they want leave behind those that they do not want and that's
| that. This is literally no different. Uber drivers wanted that
| flexibility day labor gig work and then started crying because
| they wanted a more stable income than what day labor provides. So
| they got the law involved to say well you got to pay people for
| standing around. Uber says fine you're no longer standing around
| for us so you don't need to be paid.
|
| If you want a steady job get a steady job if you want day labor
| work you show up and sometimes you get picked for the day labor
| and sometimes you go home broke.
| quantified wrote:
| There isn't an "Uber driver" in that sense any more than there
| is a "person". Early on it was part-time and more gig labor.
| When you're being leased the vehicle via Uber themselves
| [https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/vehicle-solutions/] it's
| definitely pushing towards real job. I wonder how many of those
| locked-out drivers are paying for those cars on the lease
| program, or if they get preference.
|
| Take a taxi, people!
| elmerfud wrote:
| But you're acting like this is an "on an iPhone" experience
| that's new to the world. The idea of being leased equipment
| from someone for contract or gig labor is not new and hasn't
| been new for many many decades.
|
| So if you're complaining about the idea that companies who
| hire contract labor or gig work style labor can also lease
| out equipment necessary to do that labor, should the person
| choose to lease it from them, then where have you been for
| the past 50 60 years or more. Because no one is required to
| lease equipment from Uber in order to work for Uber it's just
| an option. There are great many professions that work like
| this and have for much longer than Uber has been a thing.
| Often times mechanics are this way. They can lease their
| tools through an employer-sponsored program but they have no
| control on whether the employer needs them to work every day
| and if they'll get paid in many situations. Because often
| times that that work is also gig work if no one needs their
| car fixed you can show up and not get anything. That's only
| one of a great many examples of jobs that are like this. When
| you have flexibility your employer has flexibility as well.
|
| I think there's a great many jobs that have stupid conditions
| on employment and I wouldn't work them unless I absolutely
| had no other option. Uber is one of those things. People like
| the flexibility but flexibility can cut both ways. Often I
| hear Uber drivers talking about how they're their own Boss
| but if you're accepting work orders from someone else you're
| at the mercy of them for the work. This is the same thing in
| many salons. To work there you have to buy a seat and pay for
| that and pay for equipment oftentimes that is on a loan or a
| lease and you're your own Boss but you have a very limited
| control on when or if you will get customers. Which is
| another job that I wouldn't work unless I had no choice at
| all.
|
| So this is not pushing toward a real job in any sense anymore
| than any of these other flexible gig work style jobs which
| permeate our society. So if you're against this as a whole
| then you should have been against it for the past 70 plus
| years. But if you feel this is some new Uber phenomenon you
| are greatly mistaken and need to learn how many of the jobs
| in the market work.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| How was that comment acting like this is an "on an iPhone"
| experience that's new to the world?
| quantified wrote:
| That's a strange take. Please provide evidence for how I'm
| acting? I wondered about something, that's all I see.
|
| I think Uber is a pain to many for both making a market and
| setting the terms. Let the market decide what the prices
| and availability should be, that would be more "ride-
| sharing". They're just a super-informal taxi company. The
| fact that they weren't prosecuted for breaking laws along
| the way shows what hold money has on policy-making.
|
| A driver is a contractor of some form to Uber, Uber sets
| the prices. Uber can screw around as much as they like,
| because they set all the terms. I'm not disagreeing with
| the day labor analogy, though it's not even a day here,
| it's just whenever Uber throws them a bone. You can say the
| drivers are all stupid if they thought it should be any
| different. I'd never be an Uber driver except if I thought
| I could get someone to split gas money with me for some
| trip, actual "ride sharing".
| kortilla wrote:
| Taxis suck swamp ass. Until they can't scam you by taking
| circuitous routes, they are severely inferior.
| tombert wrote:
| Tangential, but about three years ago my wife and I went to
| Mexico for two weeks to deal with some immigration stuff.
| We made very liberal use of the "Didi" app, which I
| actually recommend because it was generally quite good, and
| most drivers would take us on direct paths and it was fine.
|
| One day, when returning back to the hotel from Walmart,
| which was about a 15 minute drive, we got a Didi, the
| driver came, and it took more than 45 minutes because he
| was taking the longest path he could find. There was no
| traffic as far as I could tell, and Didi would still pay a
| "per mile" charge.
|
| The exchange rate in Mexico is so in your favor as a US
| citizen that I didn't really complain about it because it
| only ended up being an extra $6 or so, but I did feel a
| little taken advantage of.
|
| I greatly prefer knowing my cost before I get in the cab.
| goostavos wrote:
| I begrudgingly take a taxi whenever I leave the Seattle
| airport (it's significantly faster than Uber/Lyft because
| they're already queued). I'm continuously blown away by how
| it's still a dice roll to see if we're going to do the
| "credit card machine no work" game at the end. Pair that with
| the general disgusting state of the cars and, yeah, I ain't
| takin' no taxi unless it's the only option.
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| To me this just means the workers need to be able to negotiate
| for either a standard or driver-selected minimum shift duration
| for billing purposes, just like most independent contractors
| can achieve by negotiating the terms of their contracts when
| finding clients. Every time I hire a moving company the hourly
| rate bills a contractual minimum number of hours per job
| regardless of actual time needed. Nothing about this concept is
| incompatible with flexible gig work.
|
| I realize that individual drivers have far less power in
| setting the terms of the relationships with Uber and Lyft than
| individual moving companies have over their client
| relationships, so drivers' negotiations here will require
| either union-style collective action or advocacy for changes to
| NYC's rules here.
| elmerfud wrote:
| I'm not saying it shouldn't change. What I'm saying is this
| is more commonplace than what people believe. Hair stylists,
| auto mechanics, construction workers in many places, they all
| work under these conditions and have for many years. There's
| many more professions that offer flexibility that also work
| under these conditions.
|
| Often times these same people because they're individuals do
| not have any collective bargaining to make a better deal.
| They simply take the deal that's available and hope to make
| it work. Often times it doesn't work but for some it does and
| works consistently.
|
| I do think there's a general expectation that a flexible work
| when you want styled job should only be a benefit to the
| employee. They seem to feel that the employer shouldn't be
| able to tell them when their work is no longer required.
| Because there are other jobs besides Uber and if they wanted
| to work those less flexible jobs they could. Those less
| flexible jobs tend to come with the kind of contractual
| stability you're talking about.
|
| For example your hiring of a moving company is something you
| can track for in advance. That contract is in place they can
| provide the laborers when and where they're needed. I don't
| believe it's a fair example to compare to Uber. Uber would be
| more akin to a pool of day laborers. Contractors show up they
| need five guys to roof a house. When they get to the job site
| maybe they realize that nothing is ready so they all go home
| with a pittance if anything at all. And that is the risk of
| the flexibility of day labor.
|
| Is it right? Well that kind of flexibility in your work comes
| with risks and downsides. Because sometimes the contractor
| will show up and they'll need 25 guys to frame five houses
| that day but there's only a pool of 10 people. So that risk
| cuts both ways.
| tremon wrote:
| _Hair stylists, auto mechanics, construction workers [..]
| all work under these conditions_
|
| Please specify under what conditions you mean here, because
| I know of no hair stylists nor construction workers that
| work by only doing the jobs that are allocated to them by a
| single company yet have no employment contract with that
| company. Either they own the hair salon/garage, or they get
| paid whenever they are available for work at said hair
| salon/garage by said owner.
| gruez wrote:
| >because I know of no hair stylists nor construction
| workers that work by only doing the jobs that are
| allocated to them by a single company yet have no
| employment contract with that company.
|
| Can't a rideshare driver work for both uber and lyft?
| Moreover, how much job hopping actually happens for hair
| stylists or auto mechanics?
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _Contractors show up they need five guys to roof a house.
| When they get to the job site maybe they realize that
| nothing is ready so they all go home with a pittance if
| anything at all._
|
| I worked in construction for about a decade, including with
| companies that supplemented crews with day labour when
| required, and we were always required to pay at least 4
| hours (even if we sent them home after 5 minutes).
| Aurornis wrote:
| > Nothing about this concept is incompatible with flexible
| gig work.
|
| Your example (movers) assumes the workers are already paired
| up with a customer.
|
| They don't get paid if there isn't a customer.
|
| The analogy doesn't hold. The only way to support minimum
| shift durations would be to average out fares collected and
| distribute them to everyone who was technically working a
| shift, even if they weren't driving. So the people actually
| driving would receive less payment in order to subsidize the
| people not driving.
|
| Once you open the door to paying people for not driving, the
| game becomes to find a way to park somewhere that allows you
| to participate in a shift while minimizing the number of
| customers assigned. Immediately, you'd get drivers
| strategically parking in far away locations to reduce their
| chances of picking anyone up, because if you're getting paid
| for the time on shift you'd rather sit and do nothing than
| actually drive.
|
| So actually, the concept is completely incompatible with gig
| work.
| s17n wrote:
| Obviously, what people want is full time jobs. That's what the
| whole political battle over these platforms is about.
| testfoobar wrote:
| Not everyone though - freelancers and contractors in
| particular want to work on their terms.
| larkost wrote:
| I think the issue is that in this case the drivers want to
| work on their terms, and Uber/Lift want to be able to limit
| the number of drivers at certain times (i.e.: work their
| terms) in order not to pay minimum wage to lot of drivers
| when there are too many drivers logged-in (and thus just
| sitting around).
|
| There are aspects that are unfair for both parties... and
| this is exactly the sort of situation that Uber/Lift have
| setup: it is going to be exploitive to someone. The
| companies just thought it could always be them doing the
| exploiting.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Some people do, some certainly do not
| nilamo wrote:
| Maybe all of these issues would be solved of they were salaried
| employees, who could drive when they wanted...
| qeternity wrote:
| What?!? Would you employee people full-time and let them work
| whenever they felt like it?
| ecjhdnc2025 wrote:
| Salaried !== full-time.
|
| Millions of people in the UK are legally salaried workers
| on "zero-hours" contracts, where they aren't even
| guaranteed a minimum number of hours. Paid through PAYE
| (payroll), have workers rights, just not a guaranteed
| number of hours.
|
| Most can choose when they work, many have more than one of
| these jobs.
|
| It's not a good way to live but it's at least _possibly_ a
| better way to live than the gig economy.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Yes but the UK has the NHS, it's not possible in the US
| where employees have to healthcare benefits by federal
| mandate.
|
| You can't have an employee on the payroll costing $1,500
| a month in benefits who can choose to work 0 hours in a
| month.
| larkost wrote:
| I think you are missing a part of the Federal Healthcare
| Insurance Mandate (part of the ACA): the mandate is on
| the worker, not the employer. Many employers have no
| insurance benefits for their employers.
|
| And then the other part of it: the penalty for not having
| healthcare insurance was deducted to $0 at the end of
| 2018. So there is currently no penalty at all (other than
| the massive ones if you get sick) to not carrying
| insurance.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| I think you just misunderstand what salary means? If you
| do not have guaranteed hours you are not a salary
| employee, salary means you get paid the same amount on a
| certain schedule. You are describing hourly employees
| jncfhnb wrote:
| It's very different from day laborers in that day laborers get
| to work for a day; and these drivers get to work until Uber
| says so. And one can guess that Uber is trying to minimize the
| hours worked per driver due to regulatory concerns.
|
| The day laborer knows when they're not picked to work. The Uber
| driver needs to keep checking all day presumably
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| "If you want a steady job get a steady job if you want day
| labor work you show up and sometimes you get picked for the day
| labor and sometimes you go home broke."
|
| If it was that easy right?
|
| Nobody wants to be 'day labor', that is only done in countries
| with a large surplus of labor (desperate to live labor) that
| allows companies to treat humans more like cattle.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| Dude, nobody _wants_ the instability of a gig job. It's just
| all there is at the bottom. Uber will actually pay you
| _something_ , unlike other taxi or driver jobs which have dried
| up. It's folks fighting over crumbs: I bet you Uber drivers
| would _love_ a stable taxi job, there just isn't one.
| lmm wrote:
| With day labour the clue is in the name, you get hired for the
| day. They can't send you home halfway through, or at least they
| still have to pay you a full day.
| WheatMillington wrote:
| You're setting an incredibly low bar for what we should accept.
| We're talking about people's livelihoods here - their ability
| to put food on their family's table.
| ziml77 wrote:
| I learned within the past year that Uber sucks for drivers
| _around_ NYC. The T &LC rules mean that someone who's not
| registered can't take pickups in NYC. They can still drop you off
| though, so Uber considers it valid to assign a non-T&LC vehicle
| to drive into NYC. Of course when that happens, the driver has an
| empty car going back the other way. It's awful for their pay and
| a big waste of energy and road space.
|
| Some drivers will just deal with it, but many end up asking if
| you're going into NYC. If you're lucky they will cancel the ride
| immediately, but if not then you have to wait for them to drive
| by your pickup spot before canceling the ride (which I have to
| assume is so they can say that they couldn't find you).
|
| When I do need a car into the city and it's serviced by a
| non-T&LC driver, I now make sure to leave a huge tip to make up
| for Uber not giving drivers an option to not be matched with
| people going into NYC.
| avree wrote:
| Uber drivers have been able to see the approximate destination
| before accepting the ride for over a year now in all markets.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Yeah, which is why it's confusing that my mom had two drivers
| reject her the last time she needed to get to the airport
| when I wasn't able to give her a ride to JFK.
| kevmo314 wrote:
| Wow, we've gone full circle. I remember when being able to
| reliably get an Uber to JFK was a selling point over taxis.
| holowoodman wrote:
| Isn't there a subway connection or something? I mean, it
| is an international airport and a big city...
| poorlydefined wrote:
| Taking the subway with potentially heavy check-in bags
| isn't always possible. I wouldn't say it's the most
| convenient trip and I can understand why someone would
| prefer an Uber or taxi option.
| lmm wrote:
| The US has bizarre funding rules that made it effectively
| impossible to have a through ride from municipal public
| transport to the airport until recently.
| CPLX wrote:
| LMFAO welcome to New York.
|
| We have three major large scale airports, and none of
| them are connected to the subway. It would be comical if
| it wasn't so sad.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Some drivers just don't like going to airports. It's not
| that confusing. It's possible that the fact they could see
| the destination is precisely why the rejected it.
| WheatMillington wrote:
| Why don't drivers want to go to the airport?
| blendergeek wrote:
| > in all markets.
|
| I am an Uber driver. I do not see the approximate destination
| prior to pickup. I don't know what percentage of Uber markets
| actually have that feature.
| vsuperpower2020 wrote:
| You're very confident about this, aren't you?
| AdamJacobMuller wrote:
| It also sucks for the riders and I really can't imagine Uber
| likes the situation either.
|
| It's a really annoying situation because you end up arguing
| with some driver over text or worse in person about it.
|
| They don't want to cancel because cancelling a lot impacts
| their rating with uber and they will get less rides.
|
| I don't want to cancel because after a few minutes I'll be
| charged a cancellation fee and now I have to start all over
| with another driver and a dice-roll if i'll get another driver
| who refuses to go to NYC again. If I want my $5 back I also
| have to argue with some AI customer service rep for an hour.
|
| Terrible user experience.
|
| Lyft seems to do better with assigning only TLC cars to NYC
| rides, but, not 100% -- Uber also biases towards TLC cars for
| NYC routes but there isn't always one available of course so
| sometimes you get assigned another one, just anecdotally Lyft
| seems to get you a TLC car more often.
|
| TLC are the only ones winning here.
| tivert wrote:
| > It also sucks for the riders and I really can't imagine
| Uber likes the situation either.
|
| I think the question is what does Uber do when it doesn't
| like a situation? Does it try to create the best user
| experience given the constraints, or does it make the
| situation shitty for everyone except themselves (maybe until
| it can force whatever change best serves Uber's interests,
| nevermind anyone else)?
|
| It sounds like it's totally within Uber's capabilities to
| make this situation better (add a "TLC car" flag to their
| system, and only use those cars for NYC rides), so why have
| they chosen not to do that?
| szundi wrote:
| Question is how many of these needs to be added for all the
| rogue cities
| tivert wrote:
| > Question is how many of these needs to be added for all
| the rogue cities
|
| "Rogue cities," seriously? I've seen some twisted
| propaganda ("PR") in my life, but that takes the cake.
| WheatMillington wrote:
| Help me understand this as I'm not in NY and I use uber about
| 2-3 times a year. When you use Uber you put in your
| destination up-front - so everyone already knows where you
| are and where you're going, why isn't this information used
| by drivers to make a decision on whether or not to accept?
| gqcwwjtg wrote:
| Evidently it varies by region how much information about
| the destination is given to the drivers.
| jtriangle wrote:
| Uber could certainly throw additional tech at this problem,
| but, realistically, the problem is the fault of NYC, not Uber.
| If NYC got rid of their antiquated laws, this would be a non-
| issue, and, rides would likely be cheaper and easier to obtain.
|
| Not to mention you really don't want big names like Uber/Lyft
| to be the only players that can enter the game because they
| have the resources to enter a complex regulatory market.
| tivert wrote:
| > Uber could certainly throw additional tech at this problem,
| but, realistically, the problem is the fault of NYC, not
| Uber. If NYC got rid of their antiquated laws, this would be
| a non-issue, and, rides would likely be cheaper and easier to
| obtain.
|
| No, you've got it ass-backwards. It's Uber's job to provide
| the best customer experience given their constraints, it's
| not NYC's job to bend over backwards to adapt its laws to
| Uber's model.
|
| The problem is the fault of Uber.
|
| > Not to mention you really don't want big names like
| Uber/Lyft to be the only players that can enter the game
| because they have the resources to enter a complex regulatory
| market.
|
| It sounds the additional tech required to "enter a complex
| regulatory market" is a boolean flag.
| m463 wrote:
| T&LC = New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission
| farceSpherule wrote:
| F*ck Uber.
|
| I wish the United States would do what Greece did.
| sdwr wrote:
| Implement a 6 day work week?
| MaxHoppersGhost wrote:
| Negative gdp growth and a rapidly declining standard of living?
| hnpolicestate wrote:
| Agreed. Yellow cabs were and are great. Have lived in NYC all
| 36 years of my life. Delivery drivers used to get paid fairly
| before door dash too.
|
| All these rent seekers need to go.
| cooljacob204 wrote:
| Lol having also lived in NYC my entire life yellow cabs were
| not and are not great. And I don't know a single person who
| would say it is.
|
| Delivery drivers never got paid fairly either.
|
| Idk what imaginary version of NYC you live in.
| curtis3389 wrote:
| > At the heart of the move, say the two companies, is a six-year-
| old pay rule in New York that, among other things, requires firms
| like Uber and Lyft to pay drivers for the idle time they rack up
| between rides.
|
| Remember, Uber and Lyft were created to get around labor laws,
| and here we see the companies continuing to try to skirt labor
| laws. It is a standard move of capitalists to fight regulations
| tooth and nail to try to protect their profit margins. These are
| fundamentally unprofitable businesses built on exploiting
| vulnerable workers.
| brigadier132 wrote:
| Seems like they are following the letter of the law.
| testfoobar wrote:
| If this were true, how would you explain that both drivers and
| riders enter into the relationship voluntarily. Most of my uber
| drivers have been intelligent and knowledgeable about their
| options - quite the opposite of exploited and vulnerable.
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| How do you explain a College Student with no disposable
| income signing up for a Credit Card?
|
| I drove for Uber/Lyft for a while. I fully understood I was
| converting the equity in my car into meals and rent. Most
| people don't get that at all.
| testfoobar wrote:
| Adults are free to make a wide array of legal, ethical, but
| nevertheless terrible decisions. An example is poor dietary
| choices.
|
| All jobs are a conversion of
| time/skill/knowledge/strength/etc. into a fungible token,
| money. That fungible token is then used to meet other
| needs: food and shelter being top of the list. In many
| parts of the developing world, a person cannot eat if they
| don't work that day.
|
| In the best case scenario, you come out ahead - where the
| resources you put in are returned n-fold. An I-Banker
| grinding out 80+ hour weeks is giving up time with friends
| and family and perhaps compromising health. Is that person
| exploited?
|
| Anybody who has driven for a ride sharing company
| understands that their vehicle will take on excess wear-
| and-tear and they have to pay for gas. They presumably
| compare against other jobs and pick ride sharing driver
| freely.
|
| I would say it is rather condescending to refer to adults
| making informed decisions in their own self-interest as
| vulnerable and exploited.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Uber was created because taxis blew due to corruption. It
| should not cost 100k to become a taxi driver, that was
| absolutely insane.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| It's a stupid rule to require drivers to be paid simply for
| logging in.
| taylorbuley wrote:
| The economics here are pretty pure. It seems intentional. I
| wouldn't call it stupid even if wrongheaded. But, to me, this
| cannot be an unintended side-effect. It's a feature, not a bug,
| of the regulatory model.
| subsubzero wrote:
| Uber owns the thing that the taxi companies don't have, a
| complex, real time transactional application that pairs drivers
| with riders. They can pick and choose who they want using it(sans
| discriminatory, see - illegal checks). And they are well within
| their means to say when a driver can and can't work on their own
| platform. If drivers want to be rid of this menace - Uber, then
| they are free to become cab drivers if they wish. Or use Lyft.
| Nobody gets paid for not producing which is what these drivers
| seem to want.
| PNWChris wrote:
| Is this the case?
|
| I was under the impression that Uber has to act as a pure play
| buyer-seller matching system. Otherwise the drivers aren't
| independent contractors, they're being controlled like
| employees.
| gruez wrote:
| That was the case before NYC instituted laws that mandated
| drivers be paid for idle time, converting them to basically
| employees.
| larkost wrote:
| That is a great argument... but one that has not yet
| completed its way though U.S. courts.
|
| My understanding is that both Uber and Lift vary the
| arrangement from market-to-market (sometimes within a
| country, but mostly between countries), but that at least in
| the U.S. the drivers have no ability to set their prices at
| all, but rather only have the ability to accept/decline a
| ride that has a price already attached. And if they decline
| too many rides (as defined by opaque decisions by the
| companies), that they then are penalized by being shown less
| possible rides.
|
| To me this is a worst combination of being an employee and a
| true independent contractor.
| evanb wrote:
| T+LC cabs use Curb, which can call taxis and be used only as a
| payment method.
|
| https://www.gocurb.com/
| mannyv wrote:
| Company is minimizing its costs. News at 11.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Like it or not, in the current US Capitalist's Environment (as
| opposed to some mythical earlier time when corporations were
| supposed to have some social responsibility), in this current
| environment, Humans are a Commodity.
|
| If there is a human surplus, the cost(pay) goes down.
|
| If there is a human shortage, the price(pay) goes up.
|
| When there are fewer desperate humans needing Uber to eat, and
| Uber can't find drivers, then suddenly Uber will start paying and
| treating people better.
|
| This is only newsworthy because Uber by its nature of having all
| independent contractors with a very obvious 'market' linking
| drivers to passengers. Makes this clear.
|
| It becomes very starkly clear the value of the driver and how
| much a human is worth. And that Uber can tweak their algorithms
| to minimize how much drivers are paid, thus providing a 'market'
| price for humans.
|
| Uber isn't special, it is just this human value is starkly on
| display.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| LOL
|
| I would like more feedback.
|
| Am I being downvoted by 'Capitalist's', because it sounds like
| I'm anti-free market? When really, I'm just outlining what a
| market is, how things are?
|
| Or Am I being downvoted by 'Socialist', because it sounds like
| I'm advocating that Capitalisms is the natural order and humans
| are commodities, and is just how things are?
|
| It is very hard to tell what line is being crossed.
| cs702 wrote:
| Uber and Lyft underpriced their car service for years and years,
| killing off a lot traditional competition, i.e., independent taxi
| and limo companies.
|
| Now, both Uber and Lyft seek to be profitable... so they are
| squeezing every possible penny out of riders and drivers.
|
| If it looks, smells, and tastes like a Doo-Oh-Poh-Lee, it
| probably is one.
| rpbiwer2 wrote:
| I feel like I often hear these kinds of stories about Uber, but
| rarely about Lyft. Is Lyft actually better, or are they just more
| under the radar?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-24 23:01 UTC)