Seattle becomes first in U.S. to protect gig workers from sudden 'deactivation'

Re:Seattle becomes first in U.S. to protect gig workers from... by warent on Wednesday August 09, 2023 @10:05PM (#37071049)

Well yeah... they're forced to lose money in the same way any failed non-viable business is "forced to lose money" lol

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Seattle becomes first in U.S. to protect gig workers from... by ambrood on Wednesday August 09, 2023 @10:20PM (#37071142)

perhaps update your priors at this point. Uber is a profitable company now.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Seattle becomes first in U.S. to protect gig workers from... by jfghi on Wednesday August 09, 2023 @10:28PM (#37071206)

Wikipedia puts net income at -9.1 billion for 2022. It takes more than one quarters worth of information to update a prior on a 14 year old company.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Seattle becomes first in U.S. to protect gig workers from... by imgabe on Wednesday August 09, 2023 @10:30PM (#37071217)

Uber had a profitable quarter. They are still $30 billion in the red over the lifetime of the company.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Seattle becomes first in U.S. to protect gig workers from... by sokoloff on Wednesday August 09, 2023 @10:36PM (#37071243)

Indeed. A net income of $394M doesn't even pay the imputed interest charge on $30B of aggregate losses.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Seattle becomes first in U.S. to protect gig workers from... by ambrood on Wednesday August 09, 2023 @10:50PM (#37071349)

you realise that much of it is stock grants right?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Seattle becomes first in U.S. to protect gig workers from... by ambrood on Wednesday August 09, 2023 @10:53PM (#37071369)

Again much of that is how the accounting for stock grants goes (most of it in company’s history) and not say, actual PNL incurred in incentives.

[ Parent | on HN ]