Uber/Lyft have found a loophole that enables them to skirt by one of the "Riders Must Be At Least This Tall" measuring sticks, and the law basically says: No, you actually have to be this tall, sorry.
I don't see what the issue is.
If I want to hire teenagers on my street to mow the lawn or babysit the kids, should I be forced to pay them benefits as well?
The alternative is the way California is heading: instead of taking care of people's needs directly, it's regulation after regulation to lock everything up so that only entrenched corporations with the scale to afford all these benefits can afford to operate.
> The alternative is the way California is heading: instead of taking care of people's needs directly, it's regulation after regulation to lock everything up so that only entrenched corporations with the scale to afford all these benefits can afford to operate.
These companies spent almost 200 million for this proposition (highest in California history, and since it's California - highest in all of the states). They are not poor mom and pop shop.
The issue is that uber and lyft will likely shutdown in much of california.
I guess you can think that this isn't bad, if you want. But I can assure you that many of their drivers, and customers, do not agree with you.
> Making certain business practices financially unsound is the point.
Ok, fine. But most of their california drivers probably disagree with you that it would be good for them to be fired. Most of them probably do not want to be fired. Which will likely happen.
I'm not sure about that: https://www.cnet.com/news/uber-drivers-sue-they-say-company-... and who cares about the customers? Many of their customers wouldn't have problem if Uber was using a slave labor as long as price is low, and ultimately that's what it is about.
Well the customers do. Most people are customers are something.
And most people would say that the opinion of customers matter.
If your opinion is "I don't care about the opinion of people who buy things", I guess you can feel this way. But most of society and our legal system regarding businesses is targeted toward consumer welfare.
They're currently unprofitable in the same way that Amazon spent a decade being unprofitable; every cent was invested back into growing future revenue. It's a little different; if Uber flipped their switch and started taking a profit Lyft would swoop in and steal away market share. But the unit economics do work out, I'm claiming that once prop 22 fails there will be markets for which the unit economics will no longer work out at all.
It’s like Walmart saying, “if we pay a living wage we’ll become unviable!” Well, maybe you should be. Maybe stuff shouldn’t be that cheap.
Have you even read their latest releases? Ridehailing in US as a singular unit is insanely profitable. The take home is incredible.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/13-01-2020/uber-is-a-case-...
Here's the thing... they're not making _any_ money in the first place. Every single segment of Uber's business is loss-making. So AB5 will uh, force a loss-making, VC-capital-burning, parasitic business to be slightly more loss-making at the cost of providing a living wage to drivers?
The whole situation is frankly absurd.