>We can afford to pay people, but the problem here is that it's not just me paying you a bit of money to cover your gas, insurance, mechanics, and time; it's also me paying for tens of thousands of employees and cloud datacenters and all the rest to connect me to you. That's a lot of overhead, and it's duplicated by virtue of multiple companies being in the mix doing the same thing.

Having a high overhead and not charging customers enough to recoup it sounds like a flawed business model to me.

>Also, it was never really supposed to be a career - it was supposed to be something you could do on your way to work to help subsidize your own commute. Making a career out of a side job is certainly one's own choice, and I don't want to get in the way of that, but... are people getting benefits and guaranteed hours for busking, or being a living statue? Are people guaranteed a certain minimum pay for their lemonade stand?

No, but they're also not told that they can make a living, get benefits, etc. for busking, being a living statue or running a lemonade stand. They understand from the outset that none of that will be happening. The difference here is that Uber/Lyft imply - if not state explicitly - to their drivers that it can be their sole source of income.

If it's supposed to be a method of subsidizing your own commute, shouldn't Uber/Lyft be restricting who drivers can pick up to only those customers who are heading in the same direction/on the same route that the driver has told the app they're going?

If it's supposed to be a method of subsidizing your own commute, why do Uber/Lyft assist car-less folk with obtaining rentals?