It actually is the same as killing Uber. Paying a guaranteed above-minimum-wage plus benefits would kill Uber's business model and either drive the company out of business or force it to act just like the cab companies. Either way, many customers and Uber drivers would be worse off.

Suppose I'm a spare time Uber driver. On the weekends I sit at home, comfortable on my own couch watching TV. Outside of "surge" times I only answer calls that seem REALLY CONVENIENT to take, like people traveling from my own block. When somebody within a few blocks of me wants a ride, I pause the TV, jog out to the car and take the fare, then work for a bit, eventually ending with a fare that takes me close to home again.

That business model is great for customers because the car they need is ALREADY NEARBY so they get a much quicker response. It's great for drivers because they can spend more time at home and have the flexibility to stop whenever or as often as they want, which makes it more compatible with family responsibilities - say, taking the afternoon off to look after a sick kid.

If the firm has to cover unemployment insurance, they cannot afford to let people just work whenever they feel like it and work from any location they want. If the firm has to pay a minimum wage while you've got the app running, they're not going to let you run the app while sitting on the couch all afternoon only taking the few jobs that happen to suit your fancy. You have to work X hours per day to cover the insurance premiums and every hour working has to have a certain number of fares per hour to cover the minimum wage guarantee. That turns it back into a micromanaged standard wage-slave job rather than a flexible opportunity to make a little side money on your own schedule.

>Suppose I'm a spare time Uber driver.

The problem with that supposition is that it is just that. Rather, it's an outlier and just Uber's marketing of "gig economy", not a serious contributor to the kind of volume that has driven their growth and supported their actual business model.

Especially in the densest, highest-demand areas, it's a stretch to believe there's an army of couch-surfers with garages (or other reserved parking spots) just waiting for the surge pricing to increase enough to go out and pick people up.

> That turns it back into a micromanaged standard wage-slave job

I have seen this complaint already, with respect to Uber's policies and practices.

Okay, but it isn't exactly difficult to separate people into tiers: side-gig, part-time, and full-time depending on how many hours they work and what portion of their income comes from these services.

Thing is, the law isn't so discriminating for the side-gig part.

"It actually is the same as killing Uber. Paying a guaranteed above-minimum-wage plus benefits would kill Uber's business model and either drive the company out of business or force it to act just like the cab companies. Either way, many customers and Uber drivers would be worse off."

I fail to see the problem. If you cannot give that to your employees, then you do not deserve to be in business, full stop.

Also note that killing off unsustainable businesses (by whatever definition of unsustainable, which, to a degree, we impose on the business via laws for minimum standards), it's possible for sustainable businesses to grow and prosper. The alternative is not a collapse in jobs and profit, but a different way of providing these because the void will be filled by something or someone.

That's the "...and then a miracle occurs" theory of economics.

Keep in mind that Uber solved a HUGE REAL PROBLEM that cabs didn't - Uber cheaply serves neighborhoods where it was previously near-impossible to get a cab. Increasing "minimum standards" tends to make it illegal to serve low-income communities. Just as high "minimum standards" on housing price low-income people out of the housing market, high "minimum standards" on transit jobs price low-income people out of the transit market. The market alternative here is illegal "gypsy cabs" which also didn't provide unemployment insurance or a minimum wage income.

"Increasing "minimum standards" tends to make it illegal to serve low-income communities."

That is a flat out lie. There is absolutely nothing preventing Uber from adhering to those standards while providing the same level of service they currently do.

It will significantly raise prices for customers.

Do you use Uber presently(or other such services)?

Would you use it if prices went up 50% or more?

Shouldn't I have to factor in all externalities into my choice of transportation, and use the one that's the best choice overall? Why should I pay for the full price of my car but get a discount from Uber for offloading costs onto other people? (Note that I'm not saying Uber is actually doing this, that's just what the ruling implies.)

If the two can't compare on equal footing then sure, why not skip the Uber instead.

It's not an externality. An externality is "[a] cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit" (source: Wikipedia). The Uber drivers are choosing to incur that cost by their contractual agreement with Uber.