> So now you have a bunch of "gig-workers" scraping by, often mis-accounting for the deprectiation of using their own vehicle, while often not being properly insured to carry passengers commercially. Meanwhile, Uber corporate is a money burning enterprise.

If those all those new gig workers are just scraping by today what were they doing before Uber was even an option?

Let's not blame Uber for our economic policies and the lack of steady employment caused by our shared desire to live in as "efficient" and cheap a world as possible.

And let's not imagine that Uber is all that stands between people and "good jobs."

...also, Ubers have consistent problems of not taking guide dogs or wheelchairs.

Isn't there a special flag you can set for people with wheelchairs? Either way, I think you're right, and I predict ADA woes in Ubers future. Those vans with wheelchair lifts aren't cheap, and Uber can't charge more for it under the ADA (I presume). They may end up having to W2 workers driving corporate vans so they can guarantee availability. I wonder how many areas are only served by a handful of people with wheelchair accessibility. Surge pricing is only going to tempt people so much.

Guide dogs are basically the same thing. Dogs shed, and some people are allergic, so drivers avoid them since they don't recoup lost time or money if they have to clean their car afterwards. That one's easier to fix, though. Uber is just going to have to take a hard stance on it.

I am curious if the drivers know that they are legally required to allow guide dogs. I also wonder if Uber drivers are liable under the ADA in the states where they are still independent contractors.

Not all wheelchairs require a full on wheelchair-accessible van. Many wheelchairs are also collapsible, and capable of being stowed away in a normal-sized trunk. Yet even people using those types of wheelchairs struggle with getting rides.

Both Uber and Lyft have been hit with a pretty steady stream of lawsuits around ADA compliance, and Lyft has an active settlement with the US Justice Department requiring frequent driver education as well as compliance reporting[1].

[1] https://www.engadget.com/lyft-settles-justice-department-dis...

There is no general ADA requirement for transportation services to provide wheelchair accessible vehicles.

While that's correct (only providers of fixed-route services like shuttle runs must be wheelchair accessible), there are a number of ADA requirements for private transport services[1]:

  Additionally, private entities providing
  taxi service cannot discriminate against
  individuals with disabilities by refusing 
  to provide service to individuals with 
  disabilities who can use taxi vehicles 
  and/or use service animals, refusing to
  assist with the stowing of mobility
  devices, or charging higher fares or
  fees for carrying individuals with 
  disabilities and their equipment than are 
  charged to other persons.

So you can't refuse someone with a service animal, even if you don't want service animals in your vehicle. And you can't refuse someone with a mobility device that can be stowed in your vehicle (such as a collapsible wheelchair), just because you don't want the hassle of the added time or inconvenience of helping stow away their device.

[1] https://adata.org/factsheet/ADA-accessible-transportation

So that means Uber is in full compliance?

Well, this one is trivial for a government to fix.

This is a false and fraudulent narrative that Uber opponents make. London is one of the most profitable cities for Uber so the idea they aren’t charging “true” prices is utterly false.

I think the point being made is that Uber is externalising cost onto society by (among other things) hiring its drivers as gig workers and not as proper employees. That is quite separate from whether or not Uber is making money.

So... Uber should buy cars and hire people? Then they have to ensure that people stay at work for X amount of time... and they can't work at night without overtime.

You're basically saying that Uber should just close and we get back to the fraudsters that are minicabs. Awesome! Let's make people poorer because "social justice".

That’s not what externality means. That you don’t like something doesn’t make it an externality.

For now, half of the story is us being driven around on stupid VCs' dime (or, more likely, their investors') - which is perfect! The little man doesn't get many wins like this.

Ah yes, the average Uber customer as the "little man."

> often mis-accounting for the deprectiation of using their own vehicle.

How is that a government concern? Or, how is that your concern? Drivers know what they’re doing and if they don’t, they’ll be out of business. That’s how markets work. Nobody is forced to ride or drive Uber.

The well-being of others in the society I live in is of concern to me.