Public transit is so slow (an hour vs. 10 minutes driving) that it isn't possible to use it schedule-wise - we'll just be taking the pricing hit. Others might be less able to absorb the pricing hit and will just suffer (it's either pay more or lose job).
If you didn't really need that uber, you get back to walking, biking, or busing. Or decide not to take the trip.
You might be helping the small segment of low income drivers, but hurting plenty of other low income users who may have difficulty paying higher prices. I have no idea what the net effect is, but what worries me is the state (as far as I'm aware) didn't run such an analysis before passing such far reaching laws.
She constantly tells me uber saved her life. Because her usual $20 vab ride to the pharmacy was now $4
This law is literally going to destroy the life of many seniors.
yes - there is paratransit - but we are talking schedule 2 days in advance, long bumpy van ride etc etc and hit or miss in a lot of other ways.
For the 10-minute ride in your example, the upper and lower ranges aren't going to be very far apart.
Yes, but not because of this law.
Uber has been subsidizing the rates with VC money for years, which is why they've never been profitable, while being able to destroy competition that does have as deep a war chest.
They'll now get to raise rates and move to profitability while using employee protection laws as air cover.
"The Market Fairy Will Not Solve the Problems of Uber and Lyft"
https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-market-fairy-will-not-solve-the...
> Here is the thing about Uber and Lyft (and much of the “sharing economy”).
> They don’t pay the cost of their capital.
> The wages they pay to their drivers are less than the depreciation of the cars and the expense of keeping the drivers fed, housed, and healthy. They pay less than minimum wage in most markets, and, in most markets, that is not enough to pay the costs of a car plus a human.
> These business models are ways of draining capital from the economy and putting them into the hands of a few investors and executives. They prey on desperate people who need money now, even if the money is insufficient to pay their total costs. Drivers are draining their own reserves to get cash now, but, hey, they gotta eat and pay the bills.
That isn't at all the same thing as being unsustainable, because people typically have cars whether or not they drive for Uber. Depreciation comes from both miles and vehicle age, but in general more of it comes from vehicle age. It doesn't matter if the rates can cover the portion of the depreciation attributable to vehicle age because it's not an avoidable cost; you pay it either way.
Critics also like to do these calculations using "average" vehicles and so on, but people aren't stupid. If you're making a living from driving then you buy a car that gets above average mileage and below average maintenance costs. The fact that you can't make a living doing it in a pickup truck is pretty irrelevant when the people doing it are driving hybrid sedans.
The average numbers also get brought down by the people doing it on the side. Some people drive to work every morning and will take a couple of passengers who are going in the same direction. Those people have close to zero incremental costs; they don't have to recover anything. Meanwhile the people doing it full time aren't taking whatever rides they can get at whatever rates they can get along their existing commute, they're working in the places and times that give the best rates, so they need to make more than the part timer but they also do make more.
The whole thing is in balance. If people aren't making enough money to sustain themselves then sooner or later they figure that out and they quit, which makes the price go up because there is less competition. If the price is high enough to be attractive to people then more people start driving and it comes down some. You reach an equilibrium.
That may be different for cars bought after they've already suffered most of the age-related depreciation they ever will, but in that case there is only modest depreciation in either event because the car can't lose much value to depreciation if it was already not worth very much when you bought it.
Who should we trust to make the calculation on whether it is a fair price for a "human" ? - 1 blogger with potentially an axe to grind - miilions of people who vokuntarily drive their cars and make money in the process
Which is it?
Hint: actions speak louder than words
Uber's a public company now, it has to price its services to make a profit, or to at least reduce the billions it loses each year because its prices aren't in line with market forces.
That can't be the whole story. Surely the artificial restriction of supply (taxi medallions, etc) must contribute to a higher cost.
"It has to make profits because market forces"
Article is about California passing law that effectively restricts supply
Which is it??? Is the free market mandating the price hike, or are price hikes due to regulation?
Taxis were originally as cheap as ubers used to be (think rickshaws in developing countries). Absent regulation, the price goes down to the cost of fuel, because this is a class of workers with barely any bargaining power. Uber originally claimed their innovation was logistical efficiencies ("traveling salesman") which would lower prices, but I don't think that matters as much as avoiding the regulation and removing bargaining power from drivers.
It's a cycle: rickshaws > regulation > new rickshaws ("innovation") > regulation.
This will hurt the people who take ubers for convenience e.g. don't feel like walking or squeamish about public transit. But won't affect people who need to get A > B directly. IMO this is a good thing -- more people on public transit will improve public transit.