GatewayRedbirds.com

heyzeus wrote:Because of Uber/Lyft's histronics in Austin - forcing an election to replace the city's ordinance with their own preferred, unregulated one, then losing the election due to an arrogant and insulting campaign, then pulling out of the market - several upstart competitors have now set up shop here, and are looking to get their business model and tech ramped up. The lesson is - if you're an arrogant company that treats employees and customers badly because you assume you're the only game in town, you may soon find that you're not.

Yeah, seems awfully foolish to me. The barrier to entry in the app that lets you request a ride market seems like it would be pretty low once taxicab monopoly ordinances are gone.

Arthur Dent wrote:

heyzeus wrote:Because of Uber/Lyft's histronics in Austin - forcing an election to replace the city's ordinance with their own preferred, unregulated one, then losing the election due to an arrogant and insulting campaign, then pulling out of the market - several upstart competitors have now set up shop here, and are looking to get their business model and tech ramped up. The lesson is - if you're an arrogant company that treats employees and customers badly because you assume you're the only game in town, you may soon find that you're not.

Yeah, seems awfully foolish to me. The barrier to entry in the app that lets you request a ride market seems like it would be pretty low once taxicab monopoly ordinances are gone.

Yep. The big question was whether Austin would allow ride sharing businesses to operate. When Uber and Lyft first arrived in Austin, the city was ticketing drives and even impounding vehicles, having taken the position that U/L were operating in violation of the city's taxi ordinances. Then the city changed course. So the important decision was to allow ridesharing companies to operate without cab licenses; once that call was made, really any company could operate here. It's just that U/L were already pretty sophisticated and ready to operate immediately, so there wasn't room for companies in their infancy to ramp up.

Now there is. And now Uber is threatening to pull out of Houston and Chicago as well if they don't get their way from city regulators. They're used to being beloved by customers and the only game in town on ridesharing. U/L are creating a way forward for competition that previously didn't even exist.

Arthur Dent wrote:

heyzeus wrote:Because of Uber/Lyft's histronics in Austin - forcing an election to replace the city's ordinance with their own preferred, unregulated one, then losing the election due to an arrogant and insulting campaign, then pulling out of the market - several upstart competitors have now set up shop here, and are looking to get their business model and tech ramped up. The lesson is - if you're an arrogant company that treats employees and customers badly because you assume you're the only game in town, you may soon find that you're not.

Yeah, seems awfully foolish to me. The barrier to entry in the app that lets you request a ride market seems like it would be pretty low once taxicab monopoly ordinances are gone.

It's a dumb move in a large, tech-savvy market like Austin.

An article from 2014:
UBER DRIVERS SPEAK OUT: We're Making A Lot Less Money Than Uber Is Telling People

The drivers we spoke with say they're making anywhere from $5 an hour to $20 an hour, meaning that in a year's time, if they're working 40-hour weeks, they could be making anywhere between $10,000 to $41,000.

Uber cut drivers' pay by 20% that year.

"Before the price cuts, if you did 14 trips with a few airport calls sprinkled in you could make between $350 and $400 in a day before Uber takes their 20% cut," he says. "You also have to take into account your daily fuel costs, car payments, commercial insurance and registration, and maintenance costs. With these new cuts you will be lucky to get to $250 and $300. The cuts have cut into our operating expenses. With the money I earn I can apply for food stamps, and that is no joke."

"UberX drivers spend, on average, about $130 to $150 a week on gas — you deduct that," Diallo says. "You deduct any tolls you take. You deduct the car wash you get on a daily basis. On average that can be $7 to $10 to $15, depending on where the person lives. You have to consider the mileage and the value of the car, too. These are all costs Uber doesn't take into consideration. So when the driver does the math, he realizes he's actually making minimum wage."

Also, since they are contractors they have to find their own health insurance, 401K, etc, unless they have a second job where they get that stuff.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Ubers way of doing business (ie, independent contractors) is going to be the way a lot of companies start doing business.

And, I bet a lot of drivers in smaller cities don't make much money. But a lot of drivers in larger cities make bank.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this business model of calling people "independent contractors". If we had universal health care and a better retirement plan for people, then people could probably do it full time and actually live off of it. But we don't have that. It just seems like there has to be a happy medium somewhere between the machine politics of the taxi monopoly, and the extreme approach of Uber.

The thing that is ironic as heck about it is that it is the free market telling Uber that they should raise wages. If you raise wages then the labor supply will increase to meet that demand via the Invisble Hand. Simple supply and demand. I bet it wouldn't even have to be a ton more. Just a bit more to offset some of these costs.

heyzeus wrote:Because of Uber/Lyft's histronics in Austin - forcing an election to replace the city's ordinance with their own preferred, unregulated one, then losing the election due to an arrogant and insulting campaign, then pulling out of the market - several upstart competitors have now set up shop here, and are looking to get their business model and tech ramped up. The lesson is - if you're an arrogant company that treats employees and customers badly because you assume you're the only game in town, you may soon find that you're not.

Isn't this what we want? A free market dictating a better way of doing business?

pioneer98 wrote:An article from 2014:
UBER DRIVERS SPEAK OUT: We're Making A Lot Less Money Than Uber Is Telling People

The drivers we spoke with say they're making anywhere from $5 an hour to $20 an hour, meaning that in a year's time, if they're working 40-hour weeks, they could be making anywhere between $10,000 to $41,000.

Uber cut drivers' pay by 20% that year.

"Before the price cuts, if you did 14 trips with a few airport calls sprinkled in you could make between $350 and $400 in a day before Uber takes their 20% cut," he says. "You also have to take into account your daily fuel costs, car payments, commercial insurance and registration, and maintenance costs. With these new cuts you will be lucky to get to $250 and $300. The cuts have cut into our operating expenses. With the money I earn I can apply for food stamps, and that is no joke."

"UberX drivers spend, on average, about $130 to $150 a week on gas — you deduct that," Diallo says. "You deduct any tolls you take. You deduct the car wash you get on a daily basis. On average that can be $7 to $10 to $15, depending on where the person lives. You have to consider the mileage and the value of the car, too. These are all costs Uber doesn't take into consideration. So when the driver does the math, he realizes he's actually making minimum wage."

Also, since they are contractors they have to find their own health insurance, 401K, etc, unless they have a second job where they get that stuff.

I guess I missed where anyone was forced to work for Uber. If Uber can't find drivers, they'll figure out a way to attract them. That may include health insurance, 401K, etc.

Tim wrote:

heyzeus wrote:Because of Uber/Lyft's histronics in Austin - forcing an election to replace the city's ordinance with their own preferred, unregulated one, then losing the election due to an arrogant and insulting campaign, then pulling out of the market - several upstart competitors have now set up shop here, and are looking to get their business model and tech ramped up. The lesson is - if you're an arrogant company that treats employees and customers badly because you assume you're the only game in town, you may soon find that you're not.

Isn't this what we want? A free market dictating a better way of doing business?

Sure. But it only happened after a business (Uber/Lyft] cost the City of Austin about a million dollars to call a special election to try to repeal a properly passed ordinance, which then required every citizen to take the time to vote in the special election (the uber/lift proposal was the only thing on the ballot). All because Uber/Lyft really didn't want to comply with the same background checks that other transportation company drivers have to go through, because wah regulation.

The free market is subject to regulation. The regulation is there to protect people against negative externalities. U/L decided they would rather take their ball and go home, so now we'll see whether the free market can produce a company who can comply with the law.

heyzeus wrote:

Tim wrote:

heyzeus wrote:Because of Uber/Lyft's histronics in Austin - forcing an election to replace the city's ordinance with their own preferred, unregulated one, then losing the election due to an arrogant and insulting campaign, then pulling out of the market - several upstart competitors have now set up shop here, and are looking to get their business model and tech ramped up. The lesson is - if you're an arrogant company that treats employees and customers badly because you assume you're the only game in town, you may soon find that you're not.

Isn't this what we want? A free market dictating a better way of doing business?

Sure. But it only happened after a business (Uber/Lyft] cost the City of Austin about a million dollars to call a special election to try to repeal a properly passed ordinance, which then required every citizen to take the time to vote in the special election (the uber/lift proposal was the only thing on the ballot). All because Uber/Lyft really didn't want to comply with the same background checks that other transportation company drivers have to go through, because wah regulation.

The free market is subject to regulation. The regulation is there to protect people against negative externalities. U/L decided they would rather take their ball and go home, so now we'll see whether the free market can produce a company who can comply with the law.

So now the problem is with government waste?

I take exception with the word required. I doubt that voting was mandatory.

Tim wrote:So now the problem is with government waste?

I take exception with the word required. I doubt that voting was mandatory.

What in the world are you talking about?