Is that easy to understand?
Assuming that Uber is profitable (this is not clear) then costs to riders could be lowered and drivers could be paid more, simply by splitting the profits going to Uber between these two ends. That's what a co-op is designed to do.
I didn't downvote you, but if I had it would have been because you applied the standard arguments about Uber/Lyft without considering the specific argument here: that co-op systems can benefit both the consumer and worker.
This is the comment I was responding to.
If the drivers provide a services at sufficient lower costs than Uber (something easy to do in NYC at least) then they won't have to worry about Uber.
Peter Thiel would like to have a word with you. We're supposed to be building monopolies that no natural market force can topple.
For Netflix, sure.
People spend a considerable amount of money on Uber/Lyft etc at least in NYC where I live, thus many would respond to a competitor with a 20% to 30% discount or more. This is possible in NYC because the rates are so much higher than other cities.
But there are a lot of people who need taxi like services that are price sensitive. Think of elderly who aren't able to drive or use mass transit so well and are on a fixed income.