Part of the whole argument is not only whether drivers are technically employees or contractor but also whether Uber/Lyft are stretching those category so much that neither is a good fit for the situation.

As far as I understand one of the problems is that the drivers' market is so saturated that both Uber and Lyft can act as if they where monopolies (or maybe monopsonies). They can technically move to a competitor but that applies no pressure on the market.

Again, what makes this situation tricky is that it is essentially creating a new kind of employement-like relationship that current laws and regulation do not really account for.

This is not true, moving to a competitor definitely applies pressure and keep both companies in check.

This is only true if either company ever risk running out of (good) drivers. As I understand it currently there are more workers than jobs, so if a driver decides to cut ties with one of the oligopsies they are unable to get the same amount of work from the competitor.

So: "moving to a competitor definitely applies pressure" -> true; "keep both companies in check" -> false

There are not more workers than jobs, ive worked in the industry and this is a fact. Workers on ridhailing platforms come in varying levels of quality and amount of hours they can supply

You are thinking too much about just workers, when actually the smalelst divisible unit is hours. There is portion of drivers that barely ever switch, and then there is another portion that are constantly looking for the better deal, switching through outh the day. Its a scale.

So to keep drivers happy and on your paltform, you need to implement bonus schemes or have certain base pays.

Im not sure why so many people feel that they can comment on how the ridehailing platforms work without having any real experience in driving for them or working for them.

It looks like you're correct; the IRS doesn't seem to distinguish based on pay.

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...