Hmm, I'm not so sure.

First, Uber drivers are already not making much. Drivers I've talked to here in SF say they are near $15/hour (though they can more in the form of bonuses if they hit certain hours-driven targets).

Second, the job of a passive driver will actually be both more boring and harder -- you have to pay attention while doing nothing, but be ready to take over in a second. It's like being a passenger, except you can't distract yourself in anyway. I'd much rather just drive.

Your example of San Francisco is an outlier - there's too much upward pressure on wages there to let driving compensation fall too low.

Let's have the same conversation about Minneapolis, Dallas, St. Paul, Austin, Kansas City, etc. Austin is a great example of a city with a lot of unemployement and underemployment due to the massive student population. Can't you imagine a college student riding around listening to lectures on the radio (assuming they're actually trying to do their job) for $8/hr? I can. And I can see the next student saying "I'll do it for $7.50".

Unfortunately the current favored presidential candidate wants to make that situation illegal by raising the federal minimum wage to 12 or more.

Unfortunately?

I don't think the federal minimum wage applies to contractors sitting around waiting for the next job. The revenue while the clock is running is way above minimum wage.

I certainly wouldn't like someone doing as focus demanding activity as studying while driving.

Seems like a perfect situation for an accident.

Drivers ed instructors, which is basically what supervising a self driving car is, are $14/hour average: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Driving_Instructor/H... I think this is higher than what uber is paying now.

Solution: pay drivers a bonus for the number of 'accidents avoided', or the amount of times they need to grab the wheel after the car sounds the 'take-the-wheel' ping. Drivers will be incentivized to pick-up passengers in more complex areas, which then improves the data and the car learns how to drive better in complex area.

I can't imagine why. If you were going to devote hours to being behind the wheel of an Uber, would you will willing to do it for "far less" than the already far-from-princely sums that an Uber driver makes?

I literally had an Uber driver this morning who didn't speak enough English to take the route I requested. She knew "Hello", and "Have a nice day." No harm done if she's a competent driver.

Would I devote hours being behind the wheel? No. I would try to find a job UNIXing for food because that's what I know. But we're not talking about me. We're talking about folks who have a driver's license, a clean driving record and can pass a background check. If they don't have to supply the vehicle the financial barrier to entry is much lower.

So yes I honestly think there will be downward pressure on wages for what is essentially a passive job. Sure you have to pay attention to prevent accidents, but that's it. Time to get out dragon dictate and start verbally writing the next Great American Novel.

If you're paying attention to prevent collisions then it's not a passive job. And if I got into a car to find the 'driver' dividing their attention between the road and their novel then I would get right out again.

It doesn't require a great deal of attention, either, and it's still mostly passive. Unless you're suggesting we should outlaw conversations or listening to the radio we're past the idea that people need their full undivided attention to drive. The question now is just what's the minimum.

I've seen people die in the ED because they treated driving as a passive activity. I find your hyperbole about outlawing conversations unhelpful. I very much look forward to computers having better driving skills than I had when I used to work in the ambulance service.

First, I note that you've got from "far less" to "downward pressure." Are you modifying your claim? I think that there is a considerably more colorable argument that it might shave 5 to 10% off the wages of a driver than that it might shave 50% off the wages of the driver.

While shifting the costs of vehicle purchase and maintenance from the driver to Uber is a factor, it's not enough to make driver wages "far less," and Uber has already been offering various assistances to drivers towards vehicle ownership, so nothing very dramatic is happening there -- and in any case, none of that savings will make it to the passenger, who ultimately is paying for the vehicle.

Making "far less" money than a typical Uber driver means around minimum-wage job or below. Let me suggest that there is no large pool of people who are interested in a roughly minimum-wage job with no security or prospect for advancement, who can plausibly save you from dying in a car crash.

(PS: There is no way that Uber would allow its drivers to dictate a novel while a passenger is in the car).

Sadly there is no RemindMe for ycombinator, but yes I believe "far less" is still my conclusion here. I didn't quantify far less and I'm not sure exactly how much it means? Thirty percent less? Fifty percent less? Not sure but yes I expect it'll be more than a 5 to 10% haircut you cited. And more importantly - profits will be far less if Uber adopts a taxi-like model of supplying the hardware and charging drivers a use fee.

I don't see why. Driving is considered a base-level skill in many of the places where Uber operates. It's one of those things you just assume everyone employable can do, like reading or writing. Uber drivers are mostly being paid for their time and for their vehicle, not for their driving skills.

A driver that's there for safety reasons is a good driver and is paid well

Sounds like a tautology.