The easiest way to allow drivers to set rates, and I'm not sure if there is some reason they haven't already done this, is to just let the driver tell the app their rate, so that they wouldn't even be offered rides below it (which naturally might mean they don't get as many), and the service would just give the ride to the driver in the area with the best rate. Obviously that would mean that if you set a lower rate you'd get more rides.
> we should have a solution for independent contractors being put out of work.
It's kind of non-applicable to the situation though, because when you have market pricing like this, you never really get put out of work, it's just that the amount you get paid may vary (and fall below the point where you seek other employment). Does Uber even do layoffs of contractors?
We have one age old solution for this problem. It's called savings.
There is a power imbalance here, and that's the root issue. The employee and the employer are not on the same level in terms of negotiating power. Hard for tech people like the HN crowd to realize, but in most areas outside overpaid overdemanded software engineering that's reality.
The first industrial revolution showed this pretty dramatically. The solution was workers rights, unions etc. Those things that others here call bureaucrats with a those-people-just-want-to-destroy-the-free-market negative subtone.
However, don't forget that it's usually the same for a business and its customers: Ride-hailing itself is a buyer's market. Lyft and Uber are unprofitable. The only way for them to stay "in business" is to constantly burn money.
Supply and demand is not a free market ideal, it's a law of nature. Worker's rights or unions can't raise market prices above demand by fiat, all they can do is limit supply so that prices naturally rise. That means more people are out of a job, but those that are in the job might make a little bit more, if the overhead of running the union doesn't eat up the difference.
You can make the argument that limiting supply is justified, just like forcing people into pension or health care systems may be justified because people are fundamentally irrational. You just have to be able to phrase it that way and acknowledge the trade-off, otherwise you're just fooling yourself.
In which nature? Not this one...
Maybe that's an acceptable trade-off, but we should be clear about it, not pretend we can just pump money from an empty well.
Maybe it’s not a viable business model.
Preventing people from becoming destitute is a public good. People not having money to provide for their basic needs leads to increases in crime, which is bad for everyone. It leads to increases in disease, which is bad for everyone. It leads to decreases in economic activity, which is bad for everyone.
Arguing against the basic social safety net is just plain foolish and short sighted.
[0]: https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/12/18/the-percentage-of...
Cost of living found to render savings unrealistic for many. Single accident, equipment failure, medical emergency or other such unforseeable found to wipe out meagre savings without warning. Precarious nature of employment market and inadequacy of social protections found to eradicate savings at horrific rate upon losing job, such that they become a countdown to destitution rather than a bridge.
Solution rejected; cannot be broadly implemented without other changes to the system. What else you got?
Wouldn't most companies keep performance stats for their contractors, and if one started refusing lots of jobs, stop giving them work? Seems like Uber is just automating what is a normal part of working with a contractor.
With regards to unemployment insurance, this is really a hole in our safety net. Regardless of whether Uber drivers should be considered independent contractors, we should have a solution for independent contractors being put out of work.