Yeah, I've always been baffled how much money Uber/Lyft skims off the top from their drivers, and somehow they're still losing money? I don't understand. It can't possibly be that expensive to run...
Yeah, I've always been baffled how much money Uber/Lyft skims off the top from their drivers, and somehow they're still losing money? I don't understand. It can't possibly be that expensive to run a glorified geolocation app with 3rd party map data.
If Wikipedia can run the 5th biggest site on the internet with donations and no ads, this should be doable. Subtract 5% or whatever credit card fees to add credit to your account, pay 100% to driver, take tips like Humble bundle: user chooses split between company and driver. Stick Jimmy Wales face on top if you must, that's a proven money-getter.
Reading up on Lyft's IPO, I saw that if they ceased additional marketing and R&D, they'd already be profitable. At this point, increased revenues is less desirable than increased market share with...
Reading up on Lyft's IPO, I saw that if they ceased additional marketing and R&D, they'd already be profitable. At this point, increased revenues is less desirable than increased market share with the ability to turn the screws and ramp up prices later.
This is an interesting topic because the "gig economy" is the definition of the free market. You have people that are sort of well-off driving for uber. I just found out a coworker of mine was...
This is an interesting topic because the "gig economy" is the definition of the free market. You have people that are sort of well-off driving for uber. I just found out a coworker of mine was doing grocery shopping for insta cart as a college student before starting where we work now. You also have people attempting to make a full time living out of these new opportunities, who are in a completely different economic class than the first group. The idea of the "side hustle" is, in my opinion, a very innovative and liberating one that these new apps offer. I know the against side says that "needing a second job" is bad. But I don't think everyone who gigs needs the job. But beside the "side hustle" is this different class of laborers that are just doing the gigs full time.
Now, as I said earlier, it's a great example of the free market. In my opinion, many people who are, say, driving for uber full time, are making a poor choice, and in a vacuum we could just write it off as people being stupid. But in reality, these people can make $100 today by driving, or they could polish their resume, or they could go on interviews, or they could go to school. Only one of those options nets them $100. If you do that day by day, you end up being a full time driver. I'm sure that if you don't drive for a couple days uber will ping you and offer you some bonus to start driving again too.
At the end of the day, I think it's the government's job to protect people, not Uber's. And I don't think the government should protect people via asking companies to protect them. However you regulate Uber, they will find a way to do something similar anyways. Personally, I'm a believer in abolishing minimum wage and replacing it with basic income and universal healthcare. I think that would be a nice solution to this problem, in that if everyone's basic needs are sorted, then driving would be a "side hustle" for everyone doing it. The options to apply for a better job, or go to school to work toward a better job become more realistic. I'm sure there are other solutions as well. I think that this discussion will definitely continue in the progressive canon in the next few years. I'd be interested to hear a conservative opinion on the issue, as well, other than some Darwinian "this is fine" answer.
Yeah, I've always been baffled how much money Uber/Lyft skims off the top from their drivers, and somehow they're still losing money? I don't understand. It can't possibly be that expensive to run a glorified geolocation app with 3rd party map data.
If Wikipedia can run the 5th biggest site on the internet with donations and no ads, this should be doable. Subtract 5% or whatever credit card fees to add credit to your account, pay 100% to driver, take tips like Humble bundle: user chooses split between company and driver. Stick Jimmy Wales face on top if you must, that's a proven money-getter.
Reading up on Lyft's IPO, I saw that if they ceased additional marketing and R&D, they'd already be profitable. At this point, increased revenues is less desirable than increased market share with the ability to turn the screws and ramp up prices later.
This is an interesting topic because the "gig economy" is the definition of the free market. You have people that are sort of well-off driving for uber. I just found out a coworker of mine was doing grocery shopping for insta cart as a college student before starting where we work now. You also have people attempting to make a full time living out of these new opportunities, who are in a completely different economic class than the first group. The idea of the "side hustle" is, in my opinion, a very innovative and liberating one that these new apps offer. I know the against side says that "needing a second job" is bad. But I don't think everyone who gigs needs the job. But beside the "side hustle" is this different class of laborers that are just doing the gigs full time.
Now, as I said earlier, it's a great example of the free market. In my opinion, many people who are, say, driving for uber full time, are making a poor choice, and in a vacuum we could just write it off as people being stupid. But in reality, these people can make $100 today by driving, or they could polish their resume, or they could go on interviews, or they could go to school. Only one of those options nets them $100. If you do that day by day, you end up being a full time driver. I'm sure that if you don't drive for a couple days uber will ping you and offer you some bonus to start driving again too.
At the end of the day, I think it's the government's job to protect people, not Uber's. And I don't think the government should protect people via asking companies to protect them. However you regulate Uber, they will find a way to do something similar anyways. Personally, I'm a believer in abolishing minimum wage and replacing it with basic income and universal healthcare. I think that would be a nice solution to this problem, in that if everyone's basic needs are sorted, then driving would be a "side hustle" for everyone doing it. The options to apply for a better job, or go to school to work toward a better job become more realistic. I'm sure there are other solutions as well. I think that this discussion will definitely continue in the progressive canon in the next few years. I'd be interested to hear a conservative opinion on the issue, as well, other than some Darwinian "this is fine" answer.