Uber and Lyft Can't Find Drivers Because Gig Work Sucks (vice.com) 136
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: You may have noticed recently that an Uber ride is more expensive than it used to be. As ride-hail companies Uber and Lyft hike prices to record heights during the COVID-19 pandemic, much commentary has settled on explaining this as a consequence of a "labor shortage" largely motivated by a lack of proper financial incentives. Drivers, the story goes, saw the new cash bonuses offered by companies to lure workers back as insufficient. Some, perhaps, decided they were not worth the risk of getting infected with COVID-19 or one of its budding variants, while other analyses suggested drivers were content with living on stimulus funds rather than money from driving. At the same time, the firms began curtailing subsidies that kept prices low enough to attract riders and work towards monopoly. Together, this has left us with a sudden and massive spike in ride-hail prices; Gridwise, a ride-hail driver assistance app, estimated that Uber has increased its prices by 79 percent since the second quarter of 2019.
While Uber and Lyft are reportedly thinking about offering new perks such as education, career, and expense programs, analysts admit these don't strike at core problems with the gig economy that were driving workers away before COVID-19 hit and are making it difficult to attract them now. In conversations with Motherboard, former and current ride-hail drivers pointed to a major factor for not returning: how horrible it is to work for Uber and Lyft. For some workers, this realization came long before the pandemic reared its head, and for others, the crisis hammered it home. Motherboard has changed some drivers' names or granted them anonymity out of their fear of retaliation. "If I kept driving, something was going to break," said Maurice, a former driver in New York who spent four years working for Uber and Lyft before the pandemic. "I already go nights without eating or sleeping. My back hurt, my joints hurt, my neck hurt, I felt like a donkey. Like a slave driving all the time."
"I've been driving for six years. Uber has taken at least 10,000 pounds in commission from me each year! They take 20 percent of my earnings, then offer me 200 pounds," Ramana Prai, a London-based Uber driver, told Motherboard. "I don't understand how they can take 60,000 pounds from me, then offer nothing when I'm in need. How can I provide for my partner and two kids with this? My employer has let me down."
"I woke up every day asking how long I could keep it up, I just didn't feel like a person," Yona, who worked for Lyft in California for the past six years until the pandemic, told Motherboard. "I got two kids, my mother, my sister, I couldn't see them. And I was doing all this for them but I could barely support them, barely supported myself."
"I was making even less than my sister and I was probably less safe too," Yona's sister, Destiny, told Motherboard. "She got out back in the spring, I hopped on and was coming back negative some days. I tried UberEats and DoorDash to see if that was any better, but stopped after a friend was almost robbed on a delivery. Okay, so the options are get covid or get robbed, then guess what: I'm doing none of them."
Motherboard argues that the degrading working conditions, as well as the poor pay, "are structurally necessary for ride-hail companies. They were necessary to attract and retain customers with artificially low prices, to burn through drivers at high rates that frustrate labor organizing, and bolster the narrative of gig work as temporary, transient, and convenient. It's no wonder, then, that drivers aren't coming back."
While Uber and Lyft are reportedly thinking about offering new perks such as education, career, and expense programs, analysts admit these don't strike at core problems with the gig economy that were driving workers away before COVID-19 hit and are making it difficult to attract them now. In conversations with Motherboard, former and current ride-hail drivers pointed to a major factor for not returning: how horrible it is to work for Uber and Lyft. For some workers, this realization came long before the pandemic reared its head, and for others, the crisis hammered it home. Motherboard has changed some drivers' names or granted them anonymity out of their fear of retaliation. "If I kept driving, something was going to break," said Maurice, a former driver in New York who spent four years working for Uber and Lyft before the pandemic. "I already go nights without eating or sleeping. My back hurt, my joints hurt, my neck hurt, I felt like a donkey. Like a slave driving all the time."
"I've been driving for six years. Uber has taken at least 10,000 pounds in commission from me each year! They take 20 percent of my earnings, then offer me 200 pounds," Ramana Prai, a London-based Uber driver, told Motherboard. "I don't understand how they can take 60,000 pounds from me, then offer nothing when I'm in need. How can I provide for my partner and two kids with this? My employer has let me down."
"I woke up every day asking how long I could keep it up, I just didn't feel like a person," Yona, who worked for Lyft in California for the past six years until the pandemic, told Motherboard. "I got two kids, my mother, my sister, I couldn't see them. And I was doing all this for them but I could barely support them, barely supported myself."
"I was making even less than my sister and I was probably less safe too," Yona's sister, Destiny, told Motherboard. "She got out back in the spring, I hopped on and was coming back negative some days. I tried UberEats and DoorDash to see if that was any better, but stopped after a friend was almost robbed on a delivery. Okay, so the options are get covid or get robbed, then guess what: I'm doing none of them."
Motherboard argues that the degrading working conditions, as well as the poor pay, "are structurally necessary for ride-hail companies. They were necessary to attract and retain customers with artificially low prices, to burn through drivers at high rates that frustrate labor organizing, and bolster the narrative of gig work as temporary, transient, and convenient. It's no wonder, then, that drivers aren't coming back."
So, every bit like tech and other "future" industr (Score:2)
there is an alternative (Score:5, Interesting)
they could have stopped with the hyper aggressive 'gig-ing' and hired actual employees with predictable schedules and wages, and kept some of them long term. Make it a desirable enough job that people can get promoted to.
Re:there is an alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
But that would cost money! And we would open ourselves up to Regulation!
Re: (Score:2)
But that would cost money!
Yes, it would. That would make the business unworkable because Uber and Lyft are already bleeding cash. Uber is losing $7B/yr.
And it would NOT help them attract drivers. 80% of drivers work part-time, and many have other jobs. Flexible gig work is exactly what most of them want.
Re: (Score:2)
> Uber is losing $7B/yr.
Holy shit, THAT much? I knew it was high but didn't expect it to be THAT high.
How the hell is Uber still in business? They burning through investor's money?
Re:there is an alternative (Score:5, Interesting)
How the hell is Uber still in business? They burning through investor's money?
How they stay in business is a mystery. Uber's original story was that they would lose money to build market share, and when self-driving cars were ready, they could cut out the drivers and reap the profits.
But they are no longer working on SDCs. So they have no plausible path to profitability.
Their stock is at $49/share, so the market thinks they are worth something, but I don't see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:there is an alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
What they're trying to do is put cab companies out of business, then jack up prices when they're the only game in town, similar to the way Amazon is driving malls out of business. It is "working" in that cab drivers are steadily losing money, but not quickly enough to keep Uber in the black so far.
Re:there is an alternative (Score:4, Interesting)
This: The business plan was to kill off traditional taxi cabs by subsidizing the fares.
When there were no cabs left? Fire all the Uber drivers and replace them with robots, jack up the prices to recover all that money (plus enough interest to make a 5-year investor happy, ie. 500%).
ie. destroy a whole sector of the economy just to line their pockets.
If it doesn't work out then they've squirreled away enough investor money to retire on.
It's lose-lose for us. Taxis cost more than ever and a whole bunch of people lost their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
This: The business plan was to kill off traditional taxi cabs by subsidizing the fares.
When there were no cabs left? Fire all the Uber drivers and replace them with robots, jack up the prices to recover all that money (plus enough interest to make a 5-year investor happy, ie. 500%).
ie. destroy a whole sector of the economy just to line their pockets.
If it doesn't work out then they've squirreled away enough investor money to retire on.
It's lose-lose for us. Taxis cost more than ever and a whole bunch of people lost their jobs.
If you actually can replace the drivers with robots, there's no need for killing off traditional taxi cabs first by subsidising fares.
IMNSHO, the gig economy isn't working as it mostly isn't actual side gigs - it's just a way of not having to pay what is actually employees. It's creating a colder, harsher society where security and respect for employees goes out the window. That said: If Uber actually had been able to replace the taxi drivers, this would have been a massive advance for society. As a society
Re:there is an alternative (Score:4, Informative)
then jack up prices when they're the only game in town
That doesn't work. The barriers to entry are way too low.
When Uber and Lyft had a hissy fit and pulled out of Austin, alternative rideshare companies were up and operating within a week.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I don't think anyone said it was a good business plan...
Re: (Score:2)
It's perfectly possible to steal and still end up in the red. That's why you don't see a bunch of serial petty thieves driving a Ferrari.
There's no mystery at all (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They do have a "theoretical" path to profitability. If they zeroed their R&D budget that would save 2 billion (ok fine, instead let's say they slash it drastically, that would save 1.5 billion.) Then, presumably, once people get used to taking Uber rides, they won't need a big marketing budget either. So if they greatly reduced their marketing budget from $5 billion to $1 billion, that would save $4 billion. Finally, they could greatly reduce their General & Administrative Expenses from $2 billion t
Re: (Score:2)
> So if they greatly reduced their marketing budget from $5 billion to $1 billion, that would save $4 billion.
$4B would do a lot for self-driving car research programs.
Re:there is an alternative (Score:5, Informative)
How the hell is Uber still in business? They burning through investor's money?
How they stay in business is a mystery.
Actually, it's not.
Uber has raised over $25 billion [crunchbase.com] in funding (they raised $8.1 billion [bloomberg.com] in their IPO) so they have the cash to cover their billions in annual losses [statista.com].... for the time being.
Re: (Score:2)
Their stock is at $49/share, so the market thinks they are worth something, but I don't see it.
GME is still trading for $200 several months after the meme stock rally and even suffered a small crash in between. Just remember that before you write "the market thinks."
Re: (Score:2)
Their stock is at $49/share, so the market thinks they are worth something, but I don't see it.
GME is still trading for $200 several months after the meme stock rally and even suffered a small crash in between. Just remember that before you write "the market thinks."
Eventually, reality will catch up. As an example, for the long term I have more belief in the Wall Street view on Gamestop than on the Reddit one... I just hope digital tulips go down with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, but my point is that what the market "thinks" and reality are two very different things.
I have no doubt reality will catch up with Uber at some point too.
Re: (Score:2)
It's much like any pyramid scheme. They just have to keep the balls in the air long enough to squirrel a few million away for themselves before it all crashes and burns.
Re: (Score:2)
"It can't take more than a rack full of servers". May I assume you've never run a nigh availability, high traffic web based service that also handles money?
Re: (Score:2)
Uber isn't a high availability web based service. Not even close.
Re: (Score:2)
On the face of it, "a rack full of servers" means exactly that. One rack, at one location.
Uber and Lyft publishes some broad notes on their services, but avoid going into the details publicly. Lyft supports approximately 20 million rides a month, Uber approximately 100 million rides a month. The servers and back-end databases for that are not going to fit in one rack in one location, especially the global mappng software.
Re: (Score:2)
They can just buy the tech in when it's ready.
That isn't clear. Waymo seems more interested in running their own taxi service than in selling vehicles.
They can buy self-driving Teslas, but so can anyone else.
So that gives them no competitive advantage.
Re:there is an alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
"And it would NOT help them attract drivers. 80% of drivers work part-time, and many have other jobs. Flexible gig work is exactly what most of them want."
Really? Even a part time job with predictable hours and guaranteed minimum wage would not attract any drivers? It's reasonable to hire long-term driving veterans to handle the baseload, part-timers concentrated at peak hours, and hire giggers when that isn't enough.
Re: (Score:2)
And it would NOT help them attract drivers. 80% of drivers work part-time, and many have other jobs. Flexible gig work is exactly what most of them want.
On the other hand, most of Uber's rides are provided by drivers working full-time hours:
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But that would cost money! And we would open ourselves up to Regulation!
I know you are saying this half-in-jest, but it really does cost money to replace workers with consultants or turn stuff into gigs. The cost doesn't really go away. Either we pay salaries up front, or we lose money via worker attrition.
The difference is in taxation and other operational expenses that result from replacing salaried employees with gig workers and contractors. This was (and still is) a very perverse thing in IT. 30-40 years ago, companies would employ their own IT teams. Now, then certain m
Re:there is an alternative (Score:4, Funny)
they could have stopped with the hyper aggressive 'gig-ing' and hired actual employees with predictable schedules and wages, and kept some of them long term. Make it a desirable enough job that people can get promoted to.
Except for not specifying the need for an expensive licence, it sounds like you just invented the taxi company!
Re:there is an alternative (Score:5, Informative)
Except for not specifying the need for an expensive license, it sounds like you just invented the taxi company!
Nope. Most taxi drivers are contractors, not employees.
Rather than receiving an hourly wage, it is the other way around for many taxi drivers: They pay the dispatcher by the hour to rent the medallion.
Re: there is an alternative (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And they would have failed very quickly. That business model was not working out for taxies or limo services.
Imagine a nice place to work (Score:5, Insightful)
With personal security, someone to call if you have problems, an employer who pays vacation and sick days. Who takes care of your taxes, and handles maintenance on your ride. Who pays you a base wage, regardless if you had many customers or few....
That's the reality in exactly 0 of the many rideshare, fooddelivery services, and other "customer to customer" services that have popped up in the last 10 years.
We all want to save a few bucks, but noone likes to care about the people doing the work. In reality these portals help to keep the low income people in the low income bracket. It's bad for society, but cheap for the users.
Re:Imagine a nice place to work (Score:5, Interesting)
With personal security, someone to call if you have problems, an employer who pays vacation and sick days. Who takes care of your taxes, and handles maintenance on your ride. Who pays you a base wage, regardless if you had many customers or few....
That's the reality in exactly 0 of the many rideshare, fooddelivery services, and other "customer to customer" services that have popped up in the last 10 years. We all want to save a few bucks, but noone likes to care about the people doing the work. In reality these portals help to keep the low income people in the low income bracket. It's bad for society, but cheap for the users.
And in spite of that, the cost is still exorbitant. They charge fees based on the cost of the purchase, rather than based on the actual driving, so it can actually cost me more to get a large order of food from a restaurant two miles and three traffic lights away than to take a taxi all the way to the airport (6.8 miles on a busy freeway) and back.
And I'm sure almost none of that money actually goes to the driver. So where does all that money go?
I'm not certain, but my best guess is that a lot of it gets wasted on unnecessary driving, because they fail to batch orders and deliveries by proximity, fail to schedule pickups near the last delivery to minimize excess driving, etc. Doing this sort of thing well requires deep integration with stores' websites, machine learning on a massive scale, etc., and I'm pretty sure these companies just don't have what it takes to do it right.
Re:Imagine a nice place to work (Score:5, Informative)
And I'm sure almost none of that money actually goes to the driver. So where does all that money go?
I'm not certain, but my best guess is that a lot of it gets wasted on unnecessary driving, because they fail to batch orders and deliveries by proximity, fail to schedule pickups near the last delivery to minimize excess driving, etc.
No, that's not it -- the company does not pay for that excess driving. Drivers are not paid anything for driving to the pickup location: those miles are just part of their personal overhead. This is why drivers often lose money on rides. Uber dispatches you to a location miles away, and the ride turns out to be for only a short distance. It cost you $6 just to get there, then it cost you $4 for the ride, and Uber pays you $5. (Remember that drivers are never allowed to know anything about the customer's destination until the the rider is in the vehicle and the driver is committed to the ride. Only after that point does Uber let the driver know where they are going.) Pretty sure that's the same way they operate for Uber Eats.
The ride-share companies DO have proximity and common-route technology, though. The normal dispatching algorithm has myriad factors, though. But it is explicit in the "car pool" versions of their services (aka "Uber Pool" or "Lyft Line", where customers share the ride along multiple pick-up points.
And also for food delivery: you have to pay an extra fee on Uber Eats if you want your food to come straight from the restaurant to you. Otherwise, the driver will stop at other restaurants for other customers along the way. (Doordash, however, does not do that: they seem to always go direct.)
By the way, as you say, "the (exorbitant) money doesn't go to the driver", but it also doesn't go to the restaurant, either. The food delivery service takes 30% from the cost of the order. Since the profit margin is much less than that, most restaurants lose money on every order. (If you want to "help keep you local restaurant alive", then don't use these services at all. Call the restaurant with your order and drive there and pick it up yourself.)
But didn't restaurants use these services before the pandemic? Were they always losing money? Yes and Yes. But it was a small percentage of the business and considered a marketing loss-leader That is, they assumed if you liked the food, you would convert into being an in-person dining room or self-pickup customer. Hence the proliferation of drive-thru service for sit-down restaurants. That predated the pandemic by a few years. For pizza delivery type joints: they had their own drivers and their own web sites. Well, anyway, this is what local restaurant owners tell me - I didn't audit their books. During the pandemic, they are losing money but trying to maintain their business presence. Government funding (which I suppose amounts to free money for Uber, in the end) has helped. But many have not made it.
When the pandemic is over, and people start coming back in to dine like before, the idea is that the Uber and Doordash deliveries will lessen. But if too many people just got used to it and stay home, the numbers may be different than before. If the in-person diners cannot subsidize the delivery service enough, it won't work.
But getting back to the point: Yes, these services totally screw their drivers. And when another third party is involved (a restaurant), they screw the fuck out of them, too. So where does all the money go?
And with no realistic plan to profitability, losing increasing billions per quarter since creation, why do investors keep giving them money to burn? I asked this question for years. I figured the answer was "rich people must know something I don't!". But around the time of the Uber IPO, many articles in business and financial magazines were published asking this same question. And their analysis was that the emperor had no clothes, it was all hype and good money after bad. This had consequences that made the IPO unique in history.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And the reason there is no path to profitability is that Uber loses money on every ride.
They pay the drivers hardly anything - that's not where it goes. (And I won't here go into how the drivers are even making less than they think.)
The customer price for a ride is almost totally decoupled from what the driver is paid. It is not a percentage basis of anything. And it's not much.
But the customer prices are equivalent to the taxicab fares from 40 years ago. This is great for customers and is the main reason
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that taxis can't compete with a company that charges less. They can't compete with a company that's not constantly fucking over their customers.
The last time I took a taxi from the airport, it cost me $22. He took the long way, wasted my time, and made me feel dumb for not screaming at him as he blew past the correct exit at 80 mph (apparently "hey, that's our exit" spoken in a conversational volume is not enough). Then he had the galls to ask for a tip. The last time I used Uber for the same ride,
Re: (Score:2)
The food delivery service takes 30% from the cost of the order.
Uber Eats also takes 15% off of what it pays the driver. So if the delivery cost is $5, the driver only gets paid $4.25
Re: (Score:2)
The food delivery service takes 30% from the cost of the order.
Uber Eats also takes 15% off of what it pays the driver. So if the delivery cost is $5, the driver only gets paid $4.25
The restaurant has a menu that if you dine-in has certain prices on it for items. The service then takes those prices and makes an on-line menu. The prices may or may not be the same, because Uber will sometimes raise the prices. In that case, Uber takes the entirety of the difference for itself.
(The restaurant usually doesn't even know that Uber is charging more for items than they are supposed to.
(Conversations with restaurant owners where I asked about the differing prices--and they were unaware of t
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm sure almost none of that money actually goes to the driver. So where does all that money go?
Well, I can to some degree answer that question.
Uber loses money on every ride.
The amount paid to the driver is not based on a percentage of the price the customer sees. (When Uber first started, it used to be, long long ago.)
Driver pay is pretty complicated, but mainly it is a small amount per-mile, from the pickup point to the rider drop-off. There can be various kinds of incentives added; this varies greatly from driver to driver.
The pricing of the ride for the customer is also complicated, and it has also changed over time. But I won't go into that here.
It used to be that Uber really really screwed drivers and treated them very badly. These days, because of court decisions, they screw them somewhat less.
Rideshare driving is now more of a very poor business decision, than the complete slavery hell that it used to be. However, the fundamentals have not changed. Drivers are independent contractors who get no benefits. They have to buy/lease and maintain a suitable vehicle, carry commercial driving insurance (many illegally and foolishly do not), and they pay for all the wear and tear on the car (esp. brakes and suspension and tires and more frequent oil changes etc.), their cars get somewhat torn up and abused (upholstery damaged, vomiting in expensive-to-clean places, and other repairs that normal cars don't have). They pay for all the gas (the only thing that most account for).
And as I mentioned before, they are never paid for driving to the pick-up point.
I think the only people who drive for these companies are ones who never calculate their true operating expenses. They just see cash flow and think, "I am making money!" Cash goes into their bank account or debit card the moment the ride is over. And they are generally people who are desperate for money.
There are also some people who do it on a very limited basis for entertainment. They're also not considering their expenses, but they are driving so little that it is more on the marginal side. There are not a lot of those people.
Most Uber drivers do it every day (and/or night) for a desperate living. They wold do better working at McDonalds and would you like fries with that. But they feel more free. Even though they may have a grueling schedule and can't afford a day off. And make on average, if full-time (at least 50 hours/week) about $3/hour.
Never mind fear of infection, it is no wonder that Uber can't get drivers back to work. They are getting unemployment payments that generally exceed (often double) the amount they earned killing themselves and their cars driving. When all that money ends at the end of July, probably there will be plenty of drivers again.
I haven't had any trouble hailing an Uber in the major city/burbs where I live: 2 to 6 rides a week.
Re: (Score:2)
With personal security, someone to call if you have problems, an employer who pays vacation and sick days. Who takes care of your taxes, and handles maintenance on your ride. Who pays you a base wage, regardless if you had many customers or few....
That's the reality in exactly 0 of the many rideshare, fooddelivery services, and other "customer to customer" services that have popped up in the last 10 years. We all want to save a few bucks, but noone likes to care about the people doing the work. In reality these portals help to keep the low income people in the low income bracket. It's bad for society, but cheap for the users.
Consumers aren't jumping to gig services to save a buck, but because of the convenience. They'd pay more if they were charged (at least I would.)
Whatever extra we pay is nothing compared to the savings of not having to drive to wherever it is to get said service.
Uber gigs are shitty, and the gig economy - as it exists - is harmful. But the gig economy took off because of the technology that turn these things into services that connect a customer with a provider (in this case, a gig worker.)
There's not
Re: (Score:2)
It's Midnighte you really have to watch out for, but at least he has a beard to identify him.
Re: (Score:2)
Like this is big surprise ? (Score:2)
People just noticed they're richer without it (Score:5, Insightful)
When the amount of time, money and energy I invest in an endeavor is higher than what I draw out of it, I'm better off not doing it. And when you calculate your time, your money and devaluation of your car, along with the inherent risk you have to take, you will easily notice that it just ain't worth it.
Re: People just noticed they're richer without it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by "almost"? There's a reason normal cabs can't compete at the rates that the ride shares work at, because that covers at best gas and a little pocket money for the driver.
I'm not even talking about the risk of losing your car in an accident, but simple repairs and maintenance are already not covered by the ride fees.
Re: People just noticed they're richer without it (Score:3)
But that didn't work out, so they ended up basically just being another type of taxi service.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically slug rides when I commuted to DC. People would pick up riders so they could use HOV.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
I rem reading another article that ride hailing purposely didn't provide workers an easy way to calculate the depreciation of their car. The reason why is because almost all of the drivers would realize they're losing money each ride.
The ride share company doesn't need to provide workers with a way to calculate depreciation on their cars. The workers, being independent contractors, do that themselves by keeping track of their mileage and using the IRS guidelines. The workers should also be keeping track of the cost of gas, oil, tires, maintenance, cleaning, etc. to include them as tax deductible work expenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Great side gig.. if you have an EV (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually do it and I love it. I drive a couple hours a day and I usually pull in $30-40. I like driving and I like talking to people, and I have a day job that pays my bills fine, but it's nice having that extra grand in my account at the end of the month. That's after taxes.
Having an electric car probably makes the difference, I'm not constantly pouring gas in my vehicle, I just drive until the battery is pooped then plug it in until I'm full again. No sweat.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But how would they prevent rival companies from using that infrastructure without being total and visible dicks about it?
Re: (Score:2)
In a world of cheap money, Uber and others should take that money and build out electric vehicle infra. Fast-chargers and company-provided EVs could help make their models work.
Explain how that would benefit the company.
Re: Great side gig.. if you have an EV (Score:4, Insightful)
The differt is quite obvious. You don't need to do it. There are not enough yous to supply the amount of drivers they need. The demand for drivers is such that it implies a lot of people doing it as their only job.
Same here.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I, too, own an EV - and I started driving for Uber (and doing food deliveries) last year, with the realization it was a great way to earn a little extra cash during windows of free time I had. Maybe I had a few hours on a weekend before plans I made to hang out with friends and BBQ, or I had a bit of time after my day job....
I still think the same thing I did back then though; it's crazy trying to pretend these gig jobs are a substitute for real, full-time employment. For all the work you'll have to do to earn a decent paycheck, you'd be FAR ahead putting that effort into starting your own business of some sort!
Also? If they keep raising prices on fares, they're going to start losing a lot of the customers who benefited from these services the most. People like my own daughter don't have a drivers' license and live in a small town. She can walk to her job and back, but not to things like doctor's appointments or even trips to the grocery store in bad weather. She can't afford Uber or Lyft if the rates go sky high, but it's a good option if it's only $5-6 to go to the other end of town to the grocery store or what-not. In a bigger city, you'd just take a bus -- but small towns don't have those.
Re: (Score:2)
it's crazy trying to pretend these gig jobs are a substitute for real, full-time employment.
And that's why they should not exist in a society without UBI.
I'm not going to turn this comment into a rant about why we should have UBI, everyone knows the arguments already. Instead it's a rant about why Uber should not be permitted to exist without it.
Lots of people, whether through fault of their own or not, are in desperate straits — especially now, thanks to the disruption of Covid-19. In our society, shelter is a privilege of the employed. Even if a job doesn't cover all of someone's bills, it
re: UBI? (Score:2)
I've got to say, I'm completely not following your train of logic here. (I should start by saying I'm not a supporter of the UBI, though -- so we're starting off on opposite sides on this topic.)
Jobs that fail to pay a "living wage" have always and WILL always exist -- because there's always a willingness to pay some money to do some relatively "low value" labor/work. Not everything worth paying to have done is worth paying enough to cover a person's cost of living to do!
When these "gig" jobs came about,
Re: (Score:2)
it's crazy trying to pretend these gig jobs are a substitute for real, full-time employment.
No, that is why people shouldn't be pretending that their gig jobs are a substitute for real, full-time employment. The problem isn't that the gig jobs exist and UBI doesn't. The problem is that people are trying to live off gig work instead of getting a real job.
Re: (Score:3)
I actually do it and I love it. I drive a couple hours a day and I usually pull in $30-40. I like driving and I like talking to people, and I have a day job that pays my bills fine, but it's nice having that extra grand in my account at the end of the month. That's after taxes.
Having an electric car probably makes the difference, I'm not constantly pouring gas in my vehicle, I just drive until the battery is pooped then plug it in until I'm full again. No sweat.
Might be a good side gig regardless.
I delivered pizza some while I was in the military, ages ago. I realized that I was spending a lot of my free time just driving around anyway, listening to the radio, and spending money ... so driving around making a little could hardly be worse.
Would have made a terrible main gig though. There were one or two guys I worked with for whom it was a main gig, and I don't know how they did it. Probably by living poor, and driving cheap beater vehicles that you probably can'
Re: (Score:2)
> Having an electric car probably makes the difference
It makes a difference if you forgot that you paid at least 75% more for your car (depending on the model).
And for that, you have a better car, no emissions, with lower running costs and lower maintenance cost. More importantly, for this particular case: He already had an EV. Thus, the issue is the marginal cost - cost of electricity (vs gas), increased maintenance, lower sales value due to mileage when that time comes.
True of pretty much all these jobs (Score:3)
When there really aren't any people willing to work for lousy wages, you either pay them more, give them benefits, or just close your business. And there appear to be way less people without a job to abuse.
If your business model depends on low wages, like gig workers, waitstaff, or kitchen help, most of them will run, not walk to a better paying job as quickly as they can.
Add in "asshole" bosses and managers, and the running becomes quicker.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear boss,
I found something new.
More of money,
less of YOU.
Stick a fork in it (Score:5, Insightful)
It's done. It's gotten uncompetitively expensive in our city. Rides are slow to get or just unavailable. Half the drivers are downright surly. We've gone back to using regular cabs - the experience isn't any better, but it's about 30% cheaper.
They said the business model was unsustainable. It appears they were right.
Re: (Score:2)
In many places of the world where taxis were regulated more as a general business rather than a supply constrained medallion monopoly, if you call an Uber a taxi arrives. Seriously in western Europe I can't remember the last time I called an Uber where I wasn't picked up by someone with a legitimate taxi license and taxi registration.
Re: (Score:2)
It's done. It's gotten uncompetitively expensive in our city. Rides are slow to get or just unavailable. Half the drivers are downright surly. We've gone back to using regular cabs - the experience isn't any better, but it's about 30% cheaper.
They said the business model was unsustainable. It appears they were right.
Well fuck me, if this isn't what I predicted years ago.
The shine of Uber has worn off and they've run out of starry-eyed suckers who think they'll earn a packet (not)working for an abusive company. So now they're left with people who can't get a job anywhere else.
Portland Amazon drivers quit en masse (Score:2)
In related news, two of Amazon's last mile carriers in Portland, OR, employing 155 drivers between them, have stopped delivering.
DIAF (Score:2)
The first time I saw the neon pink frilly moustache on a car was in San Francisco, back in 2015 or so, can't quite remember. It sounded pretty neat.
But the more I learned, the more I realized it was a complete and total scam. The only people making any real money are the company, while the...*ahem*..."workers" take on ALL THE RISK.
I wonder when Dara Khosrowshahi and Logan Green will be hopping on a plane for New Zealand?
Re: (Score:2)
The only people making any real money are the company
The company isn't making money, they lose money every year.
Market based solution: (Score:2)
Raise their wages.
Not all gig work sucks (Score:2)
Don't put all types of gig work into the same category. I know someone who used to make a living doing document translations until California made it illegal for her to work. She enjoyed her work and loved the flexibility. She wasn't getting rich, but she paid her bills and wasn't a leech on society.
gig work is prostitution (Score:2)
Best Slashdot Headline (Score:2)
And no truer word was spoken.
Broken business model (Score:4, Interesting)
It's laid out in black and white for investors: Uber doesn't make money so long as it has to use human drivers. It's been like this from day one. All they are doing is destroying the competition with agressive over investment and hoping some magical future technology will make them rich. Of course the drivers are going to get screwed over in this absurd mess, they are the ones least able to defend themselves. Meanwhile consumers and governments have let it happen, fooling ourselves with the deluded notion that Uber was doing something different. Sure, there are a few neat ideas on show, but for the total investment it's pathetic.
I would be quite happy to see uber crash and burn. No one involved deserves to get their money back.
Meanwhile with Taxi... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Uber has increased its prices by 79 percent since the second quarter of 2019" meanwhile my taxi service , which I took even during Covid 19, has set up plastic protection for taxi driver, but the cost per KM did not change. taxi regulation is good and has advantage - if only price stability.
Taxi regulation done well results in a better experience and decent prices. The UK is a prime example of that.
The London Black Cabs have a high standard for entry (the infamous "knowledge") and as such, have a high premium on services. However a private hire driver (mini-cabber) just needs to hold a valid drivers license and drive a vehicle registered for private hire. The difference between the two is that the private hire taxi must be pre-booked, only liveried taxis can pick you up on the street. Given
America's lost generation, for a couple months (Score:2)
It will go away with the extended/loosened unemployment benefits. Of course gig workers will be the first to go on the dole if they can ... and when the US retreats to its usual socially Darwinist way, they will be chased back into gig work unless the economy finds proper jobs to provide as an alternative.
There are lots of other jobs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gig work? (Score:2)
The UK can't find the needed 100.000 heavy truck drivers to deliver their goods to distribution centers and supermarkets and it's far, far away from Gig work.
Sold as Ride SHARE (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uber was originally sold to the cities and towns as a ride share app. Find people going the same route to work and share the expense. No, not competing with Taxis. No need for all the regulations that go with Taxis. They are not employees, they are just ride Sharers. The investors want growth and more and more money. So, more clients are needed and more drivers, with lower pay. They are now unregulated Taxis. The drivers started out trying to screw the taxis, now wonder how they ended up getting screwed. The rules are for YOUR protection.
There are very few problems with Uber drivers. There have been problems of some young people getting into fake Ubers driven by crazy rapists. So I don't buy the "regulations for your safety" line. I think there have been more incidents (certainly per capita) with licensed regulated taxi cabs.
However, let's be accurate. Uber is not an unregulated taxi service. It is an unregulated limo service. Ubers cannot pick people up off the street. They have to be pre-booked. (Which is what the app does.)
I am a seriou
Re: (Score:2)
Who told them they had to work those long hours?
Their stomach and their landlord.
Re: (Score:3)
Who told them they had to work those long hours?
Their stomach and their landlord.
No.. Too keep the stomach full and the landlord at bay you get a real, full-time, job. They are all over the place out there. This is akin to the whole fast-food-pay debate. Those jobs were aimed at teenagers. Their first real job and all of that jazz. Somewhere along the way adults got the idea that these were good "careers" or they took a job there on a temporary basis (hopefully) and didn't keep looking for an "adult-job" (for lack of a better term). Then the demands for a living wage..
Where does i
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, fast food restaurants and the like will hire teenagers but only as a last resort, the jobs certainly aren't aimed at teens anywhere outside of Hollywood fantasies. Employing teenagers comes with a lovely pile of restrictions on what they can do and when they can do it. Want a burger flipped for you for lunch Monday-Friday? Going need to be someone doing it for a living because the teens are in school and the adults working two jobs are at the better one. Want the shelves stocked at the grocery store? Most of those won't even hire 16-17yo kids: can't touch the trash compactor or cardboard baler, aren't supposed to be in the backroom while the forklift is running, and can't checkout a customer who is buying alcohol.
Uber was originally promoted as a paid version of a casual carpool: leave for work early and get paid to pick up someone going the same general direction, do the same on your way home. Problem for Uber was that is a small market, hard to pretend you are worth billions that way. So they went looking for folks willing to work throughout the day because that is when more people are looking to purchase rides. And kept pushing them to work longer, like this was supposed to be a job or something. Because if all drivers only work when they feel like then Uber's ability to maintain service when customers want it goes to hell, and then customers go elsewhere. People can still drive for Uber as a gig but unless their preference is to haul around drunks on Friday and Saturday nights Uber just isn't going to be that interested: folks spare time and customer demand just don't line up well. (aside: I used to think about doing the Friday/Saturday night gig driving thing but about the same time the novelty had worn off for ride apps and the stores about the shit drivers had to deal with began to increase)
So if you can find a kid who will mow your lawn for $10, great for you (though God help you if he hurts himself). Of course it will likely have to be done in the afternoons or on weekends when you might have wanted to be enjoying that lawn. But if you want anything done for you on your schedule, like a burger for lunch on a Thursday or having your home's lawn tended while you are off at work then be prepared to pay enough to so the people doing the work to enable your living can do a little bit of living themselves.
that is incorrect (Score:3, Insightful)
That has never been true. Heck statictically that hasn't been true since the end of 60ies, start of the 70ies. Since then an increasing number of unskilled labor has sought fast food job, neither were those job ever MEANT to be teenager from inception on, unless you count onto corporate greed to want to have teenager to be able to pay them less for long hours. People spreading the myth that those job were meant for teena
Re: (Score:2)
That has never been true. Heck statictically that hasn't been true since the end of 60ies, start of the 70ies.
Citation needed.
Since then an increasing number of unskilled labor has sought fast food job
They should have acquired skills.
Here is where you are proving you are stupid:
"Those jobs were aimed at teenagers."
That has never been true. Heck statictically that hasn't been true since the end of 60ies, start of the 70ies. Since then an increasing number of unskilled labor has sought fast food job...
The companies are aiming the jobs at teenagers. Shortsighted people who grew up to be adults and yet have no skills are trying to make a career out of working jobs aimed at teenagers. And, you are blaming the companies for the problem instead of the people who went to school and yet managed to not acquire any skills.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should Uber have to pay them for what their landlord is doing?
Re: (Score:2)
4/10 Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Who told them they had to work those long hours?
Their stomach and their landlord.
No, their desire to try to make that gig job full time employment is what is telling them to do that. Their stomach ("I already go nights without eating or sleeping.") and their landlord is telling them to get a real job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Non Issue Soon (Score:4, Insightful)
This will be a non-issue soon, as fully autonomous vehicles really are on the verge of going live, and drivers won't be needed at all. Lyft is even partnering pilot programs with AV companies.
It will just take one serious accident (which will be inevitable) and the subsequent lawsuit to put the brakes to a technology that's not ready for prime time yet.
Re: (Score:2)
This will be a non-issue soon, as fully autonomous vehicles really are on the verge of going live
How soon do you expect that to be?
Re: (Score:2)
This will be a non-issue soon, as fully autonomous vehicles really are on the verge of going live
How soon do you expect that to be?
About 10 minutes after they roll out the technology.
Re: (Score:3)
Fully autonomous vehicles are just around the corner like practical fusion power is just around the corner.