Uber proposes policy that would pay drivers a minimum wage of $21 per hour

Re:Uber proposes policy that would pay drivers a minimum wag... by abugheratwork on Thursday August 29, 2019 @01:51PM (#20831908)

$21.00 x 40 hours x 52 weeks = 43,680 in pay, for roughly one year.

$3,706 x 12 months = $44,472 in rent.

That's the first number I found on google for "san francisco average rent price" (without quotes).

I agree that those numbers are insane. Accusing someone who makes less than he needs to rent decent housing of complaining seems quite wrong. I understand that San Francisco is at the high end of cost of living. It's also where Uber and Lyft are centered.

The point of the article seems to be that Uber and Lyft support this idea because they're hoping to undermine more meaningful protective legislation, specifically California Assembly Bill 5.

Claiming that this low-ball offer from large corporations would be too hurtful to those corporations, and far too generous to their workers, would be ... insane, right?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber proposes policy that would pay drivers a minimum wag... by sokoloff on Thursday August 29, 2019 @02:32PM (#20832304)

Should someone necessarily be able to afford an apartment on their own in one of the most expensive housing markets from an activity that nearly every American adult does?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber proposes policy that would pay drivers a minimum wag... by acchow on Thursday August 29, 2019 @02:05PM (#20832050)

This is about a California policy. San Francisco makes up 2.3% of California's population. It's not even relevant to this discussion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uber proposes policy that would pay drivers a minimum wag... by jefftk on Thursday August 29, 2019 @02:01PM (#20832015)

While SF rents are nuts, just paying people more doesn't fix it: we need to allow more housing to be built.

[ Parent | on HN ]