Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday October 10 2019, @04:11AM   Printer-friendly
from the Money-for-nothing,-chicks-for-free dept.

I'm a driver for Uber and Lyft — here's exactly how much I make in one week on the job

The final tally was about $257 for less than 14 hours of work — or about $19 an hour.

Read on for a detailed breakdown of how much I made driving for Uber and Lyft, including some of the most unusual passengers and some mishaps I had along the way....

I put 291.1 miles on my Prius, using about 5.75 gallons of gas, which is about $13.22 in gas expenses for my area...

I had to then find who was open on a Sunday to replace the flat tire. While I was on the phone calling places, I figured I might as well get four new tires altogether, and an oil change too, since my car was almost due for those. Safety first... It was $430.22 to fix my car.

One estimate of the Prius TCO for 5 years / 75,000 miles is $34,067 - or $0.454 per mile, beating the IRS mileage rate of $0.58. This guy doesn't come off as one who does his own work or otherwise keeps that TCO down...

Interesting that he even neglected his gas money in his hourly "income" quotation, factoring in $0.50/mile TCO instead. His net income is around $112 for a self (likely under) estimated 14 hours of work (isn't calling around town on a Sunday to get your car fixed also work?), or $8 per hour. I suppose it's good for the self-esteem if you don't think of yourself putting your life at risk for less than minimum wage.

Anyone here eager to get out and live that gig economy lifestyle?


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @04:46AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @04:46AM (#905052)

    Libertarianism dictates your work is worth nothing and your life is worth less than nothing. You slave at one gig after another until you die. Khallow will be a billionaire someday. Buzzard is gone fishing. Spend all your money on SN subscriptions because you deserve poverty.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @05:02AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @05:02AM (#905062)

      It's not the ride, it's not the paltry percentage that Uber or Lyft throws your way, it is the blowjobs! I get like $100-250 per, depending on, you know. Great gig, if you have nothing else to do. And at least you get to be non-union, so you can undercut all the other cocksuckers in the market! Win-win!!!! No?

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:27AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:27AM (#905081)

        it is the blowjobs! I get like $100-250 per, depending on, you know.

        Not to mention that you extract your daily food while providing the services.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:24AM (3 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:24AM (#905079) Journal

      Libertarianism dictates your work is worth nothing and your life is worth less than nothing.

      Hi. How much again is your work worth to me? Last I checked it was indeed worth zero. Your life is worth a positive amount to me for a variety of reasons. Libertarianism doesn't have anything to do with that.

      You slave at one gig after another until you die.

      If that's what you want to do, then who am I to second-guess you?

      In the real world, however, there are plenty of people with a wider variety of life interests and life options than that. Gigs of the Uber sort are light-weight, that is, they're very easy to work around other jobs and have low requirements.

      Khallow will be a billionaire someday.

      Because this temporarily-embarrassed billionaire thing is so inconvenient, amirite?

      It's weird how stilted peoples' views on these things can be. Sure, I'd rather work 50 hours a week at one job than mix two or more jobs. Who wouldn't? But if I do work a second job, I'd like it to be something that I can easily work around the main job.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @07:55AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @07:55AM (#905112)

        I'd like it to be something that I can easily work around the main job.

        Ok, khallow. Are you offering a blow job? But only one you can work around your main blow job?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:36PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:36PM (#905187)

        Ewww, truly gross person admitting they are morally bankrupt. At least he already has the attitude, now he just gotta get those dolla dolla biiiiils yo!

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @10:58AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @10:58AM (#905658) Journal

          Ewww, truly gross person admitting they are morally bankrupt.

          The weird part is that you think it's me.

          As a near libertarian, if you willingly agreed to the conditions of the work and aren't hurting innocent people, then it doesn't matter to me what you do or how valuable it is to me. You have value to the people paying your wages. That's good enough.

          Nor do I think that somehow gig economy cooties are something I should care about. People have freedom to choose what they do. I don't see the need to second guess them or to take that choice away.

  • (Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday October 10 2019, @04:48AM (2 children)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (4757) on Thursday October 10 2019, @04:48AM (#905053)

    Now try to do it full-time in Compton as a sole source of income.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 10 2019, @02:03PM (1 child)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday October 10 2019, @02:03PM (#905207)

      Yeah...

      A) it sounds like this guy's 14 hours are during peak demand times, so is he choosing his own schedule or is the schedule choosing him. If you wanted 40 hours of Uber "work" in a single week, I'm guessing you'd be spending close to 70 hours in, or servicing, your car - or on "hot standby" ready to take any client that comes available.

      B) Those 40 hours are only going to net $320, I'm guessing in Compton nobody bothers saving for retirement or paying health care insurance, so... maybe you can get by and put back enough to replace that Prius when it's toast, more likely not and you'll just be SOL when the car is used up.

      C) Tips in Compton probably aren't nearly as good as this guy is getting, so plan on driving out to a better paying neighborhood to make those big bucks.

      I "read into" this story that the guy just likes driving and meeting random people, accumulating crazy stories to tell, and if you are independently wealthy and this is how you want to spend your time... jeez can't you join a club or something and leave the Taxi driving work to people who need the money? I guess most clubs lack that "Death Cab for Cutie" edge.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @11:02AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @11:02AM (#905659) Journal

        B) Those 40 hours are only going to net $320, I'm guessing in Compton nobody bothers saving for retirement or paying health care insurance, so... maybe you can get by and put back enough to replace that Prius when it's toast, more likely not and you'll just be SOL when the car is used up.

        C) Tips in Compton probably aren't nearly as good as this guy is getting, so plan on driving out to a better paying neighborhood to make those big bucks.

        So in other words, the driver is going to net more than $320 because they're not just serving riders in Compton? Who knew?

        It's interesting to hear from all these internet experts on ride hailing.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Thursday October 10 2019, @04:51AM (52 children)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday October 10 2019, @04:51AM (#905056) Journal

    This is exactly how they sell state lotteries, only people without education about the odds of lotteries will actually by lottery tickets, and we can use the money to fund education and make people not so stupid as to buy lottery tickets!

    Doesn't work with obvious rebutthole cases, obviously. "May the odds be ever in your favor, khallow!" Ah, the Chatterjay, or the MockingFinancier, or the CapitalistCuck. I have run into people in states that sponsor this false hope, and they have said to me, to my face, in truth and abonaltiy, what they were going to do, once they won the State Lottery. No Government has ever foisted such a scam on its citizens, from the beginning of time. Powerball should be ashamed, or at least the States that sponsor it. Kill gambling, kill capitalism, re-educate khallow!

    • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @05:30AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @05:30AM (#905071)

      aristachu, my man, this is a symptom, like your favorite alt-righties - the disease is the growing gap between haves and have-nots.

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:26AM (2 children)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:26AM (#905080) Journal

        Yes! If only I had a chariot with which I could conduct the well to do and Phone connected to their appointed destinations, or, once I realize the truth of the situation, to their inevitable end as solylent for the global ecosystem? This is why I never call an Uber, you never know whether you are going to get a khallow brand entreprenuer who is not too bright, or a serial killer in the making. I call an actual cab, where at least I know the serial killers are registered.

        • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday October 10 2019, @11:52PM (1 child)

          by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday October 10 2019, @11:52PM (#905463) Journal

          Or a serial killer in the making

          Hey, everyone has to start somewhere ... :-)

          ... or have a hobby ...

          ... or something. Though why anyone would want to go around killing people is beyond me. Seems like a dead-end gig. Oh wait - perfect match for the ride share gig.

          --
          SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 11 2019, @12:26AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 11 2019, @12:26AM (#905479)

            ... why anyone would want to go around killing people is beyond me ...

            Once or twice every week, I seriously consider going postal. Makes me regret to no end - I shudda took care bidness back in the dot-bomb days, piled up money, and have retired.

            One of these days, all you motherfuckers gonna get it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @05:54PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @05:54PM (#905305)

        First, thnx SN for still allowing anonymous discussion, unlike some other shitty site.

        the disease is the growing gap between haves and have-nots.

        That is the outcome of all economic systems. Previously, no economic system endured too long. Likely, neither will this one.

        You see you can devise two hypothetical systems, one where there is choice over how people spend their money in terms of how much they pay and what they pay for. The other system is one where everything has a random value, and everything you buy is chosen at random. Run both systems for a very long time, then compare the wealth distribution. Shockingly, it will be the same in both systems.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @10:11PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @10:11PM (#905417)

          Previously, no economic system endured too long. Likely, neither will this one.

          You can say the same about democracy. The key to longevity is to evolve and adapt, the same for all system. We went down this road before in the gilded 20s. Maybe another large war or two will ensue.

    • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:28AM (40 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:28AM (#905083) Journal

      "May the odds be ever in your favor, khallow!"

      Of course. What's the point of playing a game rigged against you, right? My take on the Uber thing that someone has it figured out by now since unlike a lottery, the payoff has to happen to each driver or people lose interest quickly.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:45AM (1 child)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:45AM (#905090) Journal

        Of course, like the typical mark, you do not realize that the game is rigged against you, do you, khallow? No amount of sucking up to the rich, or supporting "disruptive" technologies will result in you being any at all more wealthy. I suggest you look for a good job, with a fair wage, like, you know, a union job, and then, once you have your feet under you, we can discuss the basics of political economy. I, for one, question the wage system as an adequate method of distribution of wealth. Carry on.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @11:52AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @11:52AM (#905681) Journal

          No amount of sucking up to the rich, or supporting "disruptive" technologies will result in you being any at all more wealthy.

          I have a bit of 401k that says otherwise. Which should I consider the stronger evidence? Actual wealth? Or the empty rantings of an internet troll? Hmmm... hmmmm....

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 10 2019, @03:16PM (37 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday October 10 2019, @03:16PM (#905232)

        the payoff has to happen to each driver or people lose interest quickly.

        And, the genius of Uber is:

        - people enjoy driving, so it doesn't feel like work, so why not get "paid" even if it's barely break-even for the risk and actual expenses for doing something you enjoy?

        - people are stupid about what they call "sunk costs" - your car is only a sunk cost if you are never going to replace it, tires wear by the mile, as do timing belts, alternators, water pumps, and all the other things that are going to need service before you send the car to the junk heap. Even the window seals and other things not normally serviced wear faster when exposed to driving as opposed to being parked, particularly if you park in a shelter.

        - insurance rates are "chunky" and Uber drivers, often at their own risk, are not declaring their car as "used for hire" to their insurers, and so not picking up those costs.

        - most cities (notable exceptions for New York, London, Singapore and many others) don't really care who operates a taxi service.

        - most police are not going to "bust" an Uber driver for using a standard (non-chauffeur) class drivers' license to drive strangers for money, even though in most states that is illegal.

        So, is there any harm in people "driving for fun" and not being paid much for it? Only if those people actually need the money and are being robbed of the opportunity to seek better employment by spending all their time barely making enough money to eat, much less pay normal rent, health insurance, etc. - those people end up on government assistance, and that should be actively discouraged.

        For people with a "real job" that doesn't satisfy their social cravings, who enjoy driving and meeting strangers, and most importantly don't need the money... it's still a stab at regular taxi services (maybe deserved, but...) that have to meet higher regulatory and insurance burdens to let these hobbyists illegally compete for their income.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @09:59PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @09:59PM (#905409)

          > people enjoy driving, so it doesn't feel like work

          And yet, other people are completely certain that driving should be banned, in favor of robot cars that are currently vaporware, but somehow supposed to be "safer"?

          Very few people realize that cars have an amazing user interface. The multi-turn steering wheel (compared to aircraft_stick+trim_control, or early tiller steering, etc) does an amazing job of dealing with the huge change in gain between low speed (very low gain, have to wind on the steering to make a hard turn) vs high speed (tiny adjustments to make a lane change on the freeway). Nearly everyone can drive, and even if you are distracted (by a phone or something), the UI is so good that you normally get away with it safely.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @11:15AM (35 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @11:15AM (#905663) Journal

          So, is there any harm in people "driving for fun" and not being paid much for it? Only if those people actually need the money and are being robbed of the opportunity to seek better employment by spending all their time barely making enough money to eat, much less pay normal rent, health insurance, etc. - those people end up on government assistance, and that should be actively discouraged.

          If only you had given this as much thought as your analysis of the costs (but not benefits) of being a ride hailing driver. It's a cheap learning experience on your tax dollar. I find it remarkable how people can advocate for "government assistance" and then complain when it's used well. And the value of this learning experience can be applied to one's "better employment" in the future, including starting one's own business.

          That analysis, of course, ignores the situations where the driving gig is quite profitable.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 11 2019, @01:31PM (34 children)

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 11 2019, @01:31PM (#905717)

            It's a cheap learning experience on your tax dollar

            You want a cheap learning experience on my tax dollar? Go to university, or apprentice in a career that actually can grow to support you into retirement.

            Resume'

            Uh, yeah, drove for Uber/Lyft for 6 years straight out of high school

            Prosepcts:

            Slightly less than a kid straight out of high school.

            --
            🌻🌻 [google.com]
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @01:52PM (33 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @01:52PM (#905731) Journal

              You want a cheap learning experience on my tax dollar? Go to university, or apprentice in a career that actually can grow to support you into retirement.

              The Uber thing counts as well. It's certainly cheaper than some of the crazier programs out there in universities, and more likely to result in a person who can support themselves.

              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 11 2019, @03:17PM (30 children)

                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 11 2019, @03:17PM (#905814)

                more likely to result in a person who can support themselves

                Logic, anywhere in there? I see kids being trained to sponge off of their relatives, welfare, and all sorts of other sources of money for living while they drive for Uber, how is that more likely to result in a person who can support themselves?

                Of course, my ideas about University education are old fashioned. Back in the 1990s when you graduated with a degree in a hiring field, you could expect to get a job that paid enough to buy a car on your first day of work, maybe make a downpayment on a house within a couple of years. Not sure why that can't be true anymore.

                --
                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @03:50PM (29 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @03:50PM (#905840) Journal

                  I see kids being trained to sponge off of their relatives, welfare, and all sorts of other sources of money for living while they drive for Uber,

                  How odd. I don't see that at all. I see someone learning the basics of self employment. And I see a hell of a lot of institutionalized sponging in college.

                  how is that more likely to result in a person who can support themselves?

                  Such as learn costs and benefits? How to support themselves? How to run their own operation?

                  Back in the 1990s when you graduated with a degree in a hiring field, you could expect to get a job that paid enough to buy a car on your first day of work, maybe make a downpayment on a house within a couple of years.

                  "In a hiring field". Plenty of fields that aren't that.

                  Not sure why that can't be true anymore.

                  It's still true. Hiring fields never have that problem by definition.

                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 11 2019, @04:47PM (6 children)

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 11 2019, @04:47PM (#905885)

                    Hiring fields never have that problem by definition.

                    True enough, and there have always been people who study worthless pursuits - but back in the 1960s even they got decent jobs straight out of University.

                    What seems to have been declining is the number of things you can study in University that offer any kind of employment assurance on graduation. Certainly the percentage of graduates who remain unemployed, or employed in a job they could have gotten straight out of high school, for a year or more after graduation has been steadily rising - almost right along with the increase in tuition and fees. Corellation != Causation, but are children really becoming steadily more inept at preparing themselves for life, or is life steadily raising the bar?

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @04:57PM (5 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @04:57PM (#905890) Journal

                      True enough, and there have always been people who study worthless pursuits - but back in the 1960s even they got decent jobs straight out of University.

                      Worthless pursuits were less worthless back then. There's a lot more indoctrination now.

                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 11 2019, @05:17PM (3 children)

                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 11 2019, @05:17PM (#905905)

                        Worthless pursuits were less worthless back then. There's a lot more indoctrination now.

                        The value has never been in the degree, the value is in the person holding it and what they can learn and do on-the-job. There's a lot less willingness to pay for people now, regardless of how capable or indoctrinated they are.

                        --
                        🌻🌻 [google.com]
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @05:40PM (2 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @05:40PM (#905927) Journal

                          There's a lot less willingness to pay for people now, regardless of how capable or indoctrinated they are.

                          It doesn't matter how unwilling they are as long as the check clears.

                          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 11 2019, @06:28PM (1 child)

                            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 11 2019, @06:28PM (#905966)

                            It doesn't matter how unwilling they are as long as the check clears.

                            Yes, and no. I've seen companies go into "conserve cash" mode un-necessarily and impede their future growth tremendously, just to squeeze out a better EBIT or whatever on the current quarter.

                            So, that unwillingness to pay translates to fewer jobs, fewer opportunities to be hired, more side-shunting of people who could produce and compete at high levels into nearly worthless roles (PhD scientist driving for Uber?)

                            --
                            🌻🌻 [google.com]
                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 12 2019, @04:23AM

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 12 2019, @04:23AM (#906229) Journal

                              Yes, and no. I've seen companies go into "conserve cash" mode un-necessarily and impede their future growth tremendously, just to squeeze out a better EBIT or whatever on the current quarter.

                              I have too. But so what? As you say "yes and no". There are companies not hiring and there are companies hiring. My take is that there might be an increase in reluctance to hiring people in the US due to the increased regulatory burden of hiring, but companies are still doing it.

                      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday October 11 2019, @07:39PM

                        by aristarchus (2645) on Friday October 11 2019, @07:39PM (#906009) Journal

                        There's a lot more indoctrination now.

                        No, there isn't. What has increased exponentially is the ignorant right-wing whinging about education and how it is oppressing their stupidity and ignorant ideology. Let me guess, khallow, college drop out? Just like Billy Gates, eh? Or someone who did not learn the discipline that a long term project like a bachelor's requires? And now you recommend "Uber University"? Laughable. Insane. Idiotic. Bad faith. Get a real job, khallow! You are taking summer jobs away from actual college students!

                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 11 2019, @05:05PM (21 children)

                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 11 2019, @05:05PM (#905893)

                    How odd. I don't see that at all. I see someone learning the basics of self employment.

                    I've seen a lot of older people try to learn these basics of self employment from the MLM world. It ends, 999 times out of 1000 or worse, with them quitting in frustration that they weren't one of the "lucky ones" that advanced to the golden levels.

                    I see a hell of a lot of institutionalized sponging in college.

                    F-yeah! First 4 years of college were the best free ride of my life, just had to get something resembling decent grades to keep my scholarships. The next 2 I "worked" about 10 hours a week in exchange for free tuition and $14K per year, but... all of those years were working toward a more or less guaranteed $30-36K/year job at any one of a thousand companies. The peacetime military was little different, kids out of high school mostly screwing off and occasionally learning something of value in the world - with the added thrill that you might be told to go get shot at.

                    Now, back in those golden 80s, the kids that didn't go to University tended to be "getting a head start on life" which mostly translated to continuing to swap dating partners like the kids on Beverly Hills 90210 except with the occasional pregnancy, marriage and divorce thrown in. They mostly never left their home town, never achieved nearly as much as their parents, but often ended up in trouble with the law and/or on public assistance. Oh, and there was the kid whose dad owned the car dealership, he did o.k. I think lots of them would be driving for Uber today, but I seriously doubt they would learn anything of value from the experience, no more than they did driving for Dominos Pizza.

                    --
                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @05:21PM (1 child)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @05:21PM (#905909) Journal

                      I think lots of them would be driving for Uber today, but I seriously doubt they would learn anything of value from the experience, no more than they did driving for Dominos Pizza.

                      Depends what they learned from driving for Dominos Pizza. Still cheaper than someone getting a radioactive, non-hiring degree from college.

                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 11 2019, @06:23PM

                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 11 2019, @06:23PM (#905965)

                        Depends what they learned from driving for Dominos Pizza.

                        The best lesson I saw learned from Dominos was: free pizza can buy friends cheaper than most other things. Might be useful for a career in politics...

                        Still cheaper than someone getting a radioactive, non-hiring degree from college.

                        Funny choice of adjectives, the only "big companies" that were hiring in '88 and '90 when I got out of school were literally the nuclear services. Still, managed to find a good gig at a smaller non-glowing shop that ran for 12 years, and taught me 10x more than my 6 years in Uni, but without that degree they probably wouldn't have hired me, and I definitely wouldn't have padded their personnel roster with as much value add without that M.S. behind my name.

                        --
                        🌻🌻 [google.com]
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 12 2019, @04:26AM (18 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 12 2019, @04:26AM (#906231) Journal
                      I forgot to mention this part:

                      I've seen a lot of older people try to learn these basics of self employment from the MLM world. It ends, 999 times out of 1000 or worse, with them quitting in frustration that they weren't one of the "lucky ones" that advanced to the golden levels.

                      Major League Marketing (MLM) is some weird business cult thing. It has no serious place in this thread. Plus, we see that the older people learned from the exercise.

                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday October 12 2019, @08:58PM (17 children)

                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday October 12 2019, @08:58PM (#906424)

                        Well - the MLM I refer to should be a side-show thing, but it's not:

                        https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/the-15-most-hated-multi-level-marketing-companies-right-now.html/ [cheatsheet.com]

                        There are hundreds of them, taking up the time / working effort of tens of millions of US citizens, generating billions of dollars of income for their top tiers and mostly sucking dry 99%+ of their workforce with sub-minimum wage net compensation. Uber/Lyft are like MLM without the pyramid...

                        --
                        🌻🌻 [google.com]
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 12 2019, @09:36PM (16 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 12 2019, @09:36PM (#906432) Journal

                          There are hundreds of them, taking up the time / working effort of tens of millions of US citizens, generating billions of dollars of income for their top tiers and mostly sucking dry 99%+ of their workforce with sub-minimum wage net compensation.

                          And providing a cheap learning opportunity on your tax dollar. What is there not to like?

                          Uber/Lyft are like MLM without the pyramid...

                          In other words, not like the MLM. Among other things, you don't end up with a closet of crappy cosmetic products when you're done.

                          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday October 13 2019, @12:10AM (15 children)

                            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday October 13 2019, @12:10AM (#906468)

                            And providing a cheap learning opportunity on your tax dollar. What is there not to like?

                            You strike me as someone who kicks puppies to teach them lessons. I don't appreciate my tax dollars being spent on kicking puppies, furthermore, the reality of the situation is: these kicked puppies often end up on perpetual assistance, having children while they are on assistance, and teaching their children how to live on perpetual assistance... selling Mary Kay & similar elevates fewer people out of poverty than the state lotteries, and teaches them just about as many practical productive skills as the lottery does.

                            Uber/Lyft are like MLM without the pyramid...

                            In other words, not like the MLM.

                            No, in other words, like 99% of the participants in MLM, stuck on the bottom working for the "fun" of it, which is great if you don't need money from your job, but the majority of people I've encountered in MLMs actually do need money from their jobs, they are just wasting their time with the MLMs because there aren't any better opportunities immediately available, and that's a pretty sad statement on the availability of opportunity.

                            The lack of a "brass ring" that they will never attain in Uber/Lyft is more than made up for by the sucking of value from the drivers' vehicles which they don't understand.

                            Among other things, you don't end up with a closet of crappy cosmetic products when you're done.

                            Good point, and do you think that closet full of crappy cosmetic (or other, there are soooo many others) products actually teaches anything leading to future productivity? Drive for Uber/Lyft long enough and you might figure out that is why your car is an expensive to maintain high mileage piece of ---- while your non Uber/Lyft friends' cars they bought at the same time are still in good condition, maybe - lots of people still aren't that bright, and never will be no matter how many harsh lessons you put them through.

                            The puppies will be kicked until they learn how to be good productive doggies? Like the old British Navy: the beatings will continue until morale improves.

                            --
                            🌻🌻 [google.com]
                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 13 2019, @05:17AM (14 children)

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 13 2019, @05:17AM (#906539) Journal

                              You strike me as someone who kicks puppies to teach them lessons.

                              Funny how the empathic ones are always fresh out of empathy when it comes to disagreement. You're the third one in the past couple of weeks, pushing such arguments, who then invented some bizarre straw man just because I continued to disagree Let me just say that this sort of lack of empathy and understanding is a huge part of what makes political economic policy such a clusterfuck.

                              I'll note also that this sort of thinking has a lot of similarities with the MLM thing. You're sure you're going to sell that several thousand dollars in lip stick. The difference is that when "government assistance" doesn't lead to the outcome you expected, your behavior is not corrected. There's no pile of lipstick that one can stick your nose into and say "Bad dog!" The harm is either invisible to you or easily attributed to outside forces and their mental failwaves.

                              Good point, and do you think that closet full of crappy cosmetic (or other, there are soooo many others) products actually teaches anything leading to future productivity?

                              Oh yes, I do. "Future productivity" is more than just learning some skills, it's also learning about yourself. Here, they pick up lessons on the power of gullibility and one's ability to overestimate one's abilities. Further application may well be needed, but it's eventually going to stick.

                              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday October 13 2019, @01:15PM (13 children)

                                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday October 13 2019, @01:15PM (#906602)

                                this sort of thinking has a lot of similarities with the MLM thing. You're sure you're going to sell that several thousand dollars in lip stick. The difference is that when "government assistance" doesn't lead to the outcome you expected, your behavior is not corrected. There's no pile of lipstick that one can stick your nose into and say "Bad dog!" The harm is either invisible to you or easily attributed to outside forces and their mental failwaves.

                                Which... sounds to me like you're saying that there are a lot of people out there who never learn from MLM and similar failures. What is it you propose to do with these people? Deportation of domestically born citizens? Concentration camps? Or would you rather keep them dangling on a poverty string their whole lives, resenting those around them who have so much more opportunity and comfort? That last one sounds like a great formula for an extended wave of crime and violence - when they go there is it O.K. to execute them, or do we have to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives?

                                Here, they pick up lessons on the power of gullibility and one's ability to overestimate one's abilities. Further application may well be needed, but it's eventually going to stick.

                                Keep telling yourself that, just like people who keep losing the lottery for decades on end will eventually stop spending their food money for lottery tickets (clue: a lot of them don't.)

                                Realpolitik: you don't get to govern the citizenry you wish for, you get to govern the citizenry you have. What makes it the ultimate clusterfuck is that the "best" form of government we have devised in 10,000 years of civilization has strong elements of the inmates running the asylum.

                                --
                                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 13 2019, @01:30PM (12 children)

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 13 2019, @01:30PM (#906605) Journal

                                  Which... sounds to me like you're saying that there are a lot of people out there who never learn from MLM and similar failures.

                                  Doesn't sound like that to me. Failure is a very different matter when you have to deal with the aftermath, even if it's merely chucking the contents of a closet.

                                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday October 13 2019, @02:14PM (11 children)

                                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday October 13 2019, @02:14PM (#906613)

                                    Well, look around and meet a few serial MLM addicts, lottery addicts, Oxycontin addicts (including the esteemed Rush Limbaugh), they can't all afford to check themselves into fancy rehab clinics, and even the best rehab clinics have a less than stellar relapse rate - and the relapse rate for "life therapy" is predictably worse.

                                    --
                                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 13 2019, @02:55PM (10 children)

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 13 2019, @02:55PM (#906630) Journal
                                      You have a point to that? I didn't say one lesson was good enough for everyone. Some take more.
                                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday October 13 2019, @03:11PM (1 child)

                                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday October 13 2019, @03:11PM (#906634)

                                        The point is: how much productive life are you willing to waste on "life lessons" instead of trying a little intervention?

                                        Spare the rod, spoil the child doesn't advocate beatings, it refers to a shepherd's crook and redirection. It's how many advanced mammals pass knowledge down the generations, instead of leaving their offspring to chance and self-learning like sea turtles do.

                                        --
                                        🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 14 2019, @06:02AM

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 14 2019, @06:02AM (#906848) Journal

                                          The point is: how much productive life are you willing to waste on "life lessons" instead of trying a little intervention?

                                          Quite a bit. It's only a short jump to intervening because you bribed the right people. Most corporate welfare, for example, is rationalized on this basis.

                                          It's how many advanced mammals pass knowledge down the generations, instead of leaving their offspring to chance and self-learning like sea turtles do.

                                          They'll leave a kid to die, if it just doesn't get it. Nature is not that generous.

                                      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 14 2019, @02:30AM (7 children)

                                        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday October 14 2019, @02:30AM (#906814)

                                        Continuing the previous response about: nanny state, telling corporations to coddle the citizens, etc... where to draw that line? Quite simple, I think: what percentage of the corporations' employees are also receiving federal assistance? If they have "above average" dependence on federal assistance among their workers, that's O.K. - but, they should be examined more closely to ensure that they are: paying fair compensation, providing opportunity for growth to get off of federal assistance, adequately informing employees of opportunities to better their circumstances, etc.

                                        When my tax dollars are subsidizing a company's labor, that company had better be doing everything necessary to get their employees off of public assistance - just as fast as unemployment benefits would run out, if not faster.

                                        --
                                        🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 14 2019, @06:14AM (6 children)

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 14 2019, @06:14AM (#906850) Journal

                                          When my tax dollars are subsidizing a company's labor, that company had better be doing everything necessary to get their employees off of public assistance - just as fast as unemployment benefits would run out, if not faster.

                                          Why? It's not their job.

                                          You decided to subsidize the employment of poor people - that is what "subsidizing a company's labor" means - if like it were even a bad thing. Man up and accept the consequences of your choices.

                                          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 14 2019, @01:38PM (5 children)

                                            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday October 14 2019, @01:38PM (#906912)

                                            Why? It's not their job.

                                            To treat their employees like human beings, that's become their job about 100 years ago and I generally thing it's a good thing.

                                            You decided to subsidize the employment of poor people - that is what "subsidizing a company's labor" means

                                            First off, I didn't decide jack shit, I was born into a world with welfare babies.

                                            if like it were even a bad thing.

                                            Perpetual dependency on the nanny state, taxing the productive to house and feed the poor? Keeping a large poor population around in unhappy conditions, much more likely to strike out in crime and violence. Yeah, that's a bad thing. Corporations profiting from the situation while doing nothing to end it. Profits are fine, perpetuating poverty isn't. Figure out how to pay the workers, or fold up shop and make room for someone who will. Killing corporations isn't murder.

                                            --
                                            🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 14 2019, @01:53PM (4 children)

                                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 14 2019, @01:53PM (#906919) Journal

                                              To treat their employees like human beings

                                              They are. Companies like Walmart are in fact going above and beyond that by helping their lower income employees find these programs to supplement their employee's income.

                                              First off, I didn't decide jack shit, I was born into a world with welfare babies.

                                              Then why not just end these troublesome programs? No welfare, unemployment insurance, etc, then no subsidies for Walmart. You're just not owning up to the decisions you made.

                                              Perpetual dependency on the nanny state, taxing the productive to house and feed the poor? Keeping a large poor population around in unhappy conditions, much more likely to strike out in crime and violence. Yeah, that's a bad thing.

                                              I call your bluff. End them, if they're so much trouble. Corporations didn't create these programs.

                                              Corporations profiting from the situation while doing nothing to end it. Profits are fine, perpetuating poverty isn't. Figure out how to pay the workers, or fold up shop and make room for someone who will. Killing corporations isn't murder.

                                              Why? Once again, it's not their job. If anyone has that job, it's the employees. We certainly don't have to kill off employers and make the situation worse.

                                              • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 14 2019, @04:20PM (3 children)

                                                by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday October 14 2019, @04:20PM (#906996)

                                                going above and beyond that by helping their lower income employees find these programs to supplement their employee's income.

                                                And, that's great for a temporary situation. If the non-working poor can't draw unemployment for more than a limited time, the working poor should also be getting out of their welfare dependencies in a similar timeframe, not left to rot on the bottom of the pyramid.

                                                why not just end these troublesome programs? No welfare, unemployment insurance, etc, then no subsidies for Walmart. You're just not owning up to the decisions you made.

                                                No, the decision I made is for UBI, which could/should empower the working poor to give wage slave shops like WalMart the big middle finger if they don't like their working conditions. UBI doesn't run out, doesn't make the recipients run around doing bureaucratic BS to get what they need to live. This crap pile of public assistance programs we have in the US today are nothing like the decisions I made.

                                                I call your bluff. End them, if they're so much trouble. Corporations didn't create these programs.

                                                I call yours: $0.0228 per minute UBI, delivered electronically to every U.S. citizen. Start taxing income and capital gains of anything over $12K per year above that UBI at a flat percentage rate all the way up - at whatever percentage rate is needed to keep total revenue the same as it is today. No more foodstamps, no more welfare, no more minimum wage, and UBI for children past the first one in each household cuts by half for each additional child. Crappy jobs would go away, because nobody needs them. If the services those crappy job employees provided were really worth something, they'll have to find a way to make the jobs less crappy - which doesn't always mean more money.

                                                --
                                                🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 14 2019, @05:18PM (2 children)

                                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 14 2019, @05:18PM (#907040) Journal

                                                  And, that's great for a temporary situation. If the non-working poor can't draw unemployment for more than a limited time, the working poor should also be getting out of their welfare dependencies in a similar timeframe, not left to rot on the bottom of the pyramid.

                                                  Good thing that Walmart is improving their situation then, isn't it? Your pathology in this matter is interesting to watch.

                                                  No, the decision I made is for UBI, which could/should empower the working poor to give wage slave shops like WalMart the big middle finger if they don't like their working conditions. UBI doesn't run out, doesn't make the recipients run around doing bureaucratic BS to get what they need to live. This crap pile of public assistance programs we have in the US today are nothing like the decisions I made.

                                                  Or work for the slave shops, if they do like their working conditions and want more spending money.

                                                  I call yours: $0.0228 per minute UBI, delivered electronically to every U.S. citizen.

                                                  So $12k per year for a total of roughly $4 trillion per year. Even if we end all present day federal spending except for interest payments, we're only $3 trillion of the way there. Where's the money coming from? And how do you deal with the dual problems of people voting for more UBI and avoiding work like you want them to?

                                                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 14 2019, @06:40PM

                                                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday October 14 2019, @06:40PM (#907083)

                                                    So $12k per year for a total of roughly $4 trillion per year. Even if we end all present day federal spending except for interest payments, we're only $3 trillion of the way there. Where's the money coming from?

                                                    So, without looking anything up I'm at least in the ballpark...

                                                    Social Security - replaced. Unemployment, SNAP, etc. - replaced.

                                                    Obviously, doing this overnight would be unhealthy, it would need to be progressively implemented (which is even more problematic on the political side.) Employers could pay the UBI for their employees as a different sort of "minimum wage" - but, the difference is: the employee has the option to walk and not lose anything. Jobs that people actually want to work at, imagine that.

                                                    --
                                                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
                                                  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday October 14 2019, @07:48PM

                                                    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday October 14 2019, @07:48PM (#907105)

                                                    roughly $4 trillion per year. Even if we end all present day federal spending except for interest payments, we're only $3 trillion of the way there. Where's the money coming from?

                                                    130 million FTE in the US -> 1.56T

                                                    27 million Part Timers averaging 34 hours per week, 34/40 * 12000 = 10200 per head -> 275B

                                                    Social Security -> 980B

                                                    SNAP -> 70B

                                                    Unemployment -> 100B

                                                    60 million US citizens under age 14, count them at 1/2 UBI rate on average -> 360B

                                                    There's 3.3T of your 4T. Maybe UBI isn't $12K/yr, maybe it's $10K/yr at today's tax rates. That's $10K/yr per capita of security - no excuses for homelessness, starvation, and no worry "if I don't keep this crappy job my kids are going to have to sleep in a bus shelter."

                                                    My wife's parents lived for 20 years on less than $20K/yr fixed income, and they managed to keep $18K in savings while doing it - it wasn't luxurious, but it was what they wanted to do, in Florida, with a truck they drove, a sailboat when they could manage it, a vacation to Iceland...

                                                    --
                                                    🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 11 2019, @07:32PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 11 2019, @07:32PM (#906004)

                The Uber thing counts as well. It's certainly cheaper than some of the crazier programs out there in universities, and more likely to result in a person who can support themselves.

                No, it does not. Full stop and obvious rebuttal.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 12 2019, @09:40PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 12 2019, @09:40PM (#906435) Journal
                  Obvious rebuttal - borrowing tens of thousands of dollars for any of the victimology programs, spending five or six years getting the degree, and then coming out less employable than you did coming in. An Uber driver at least can point to that as work experience.
    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday October 10 2019, @04:25PM (1 child)

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 10 2019, @04:25PM (#905263) Journal

      The thing about the lottery is, if you like to fantasize about being wealthy, it's got a secondary gain that is independent of the monetary reckoning. I *do* consider it a tax on the innumerate, but it's less unfair than it appears if all you do is count the returns. The same argument applies to any form of gambling. If it weren't for the secondary gain, you wouldn't have ANY people who were "addicted to gambling", and there are many who are. I even knew an accountant who was.

      So the secondary question is "Is that secondary gain detrimental?" (either to the person or to society). In *most* cases the answer is no. Unfortunately, in some of the cases where the answer is yes it can be extremely detrimental. How this should be handled is an unresolved problem. To me it looks like a case where medical advice should form the foundation of the law, but in this area that's uncertain, and there are many who take an authoritative position on "moral" grounds, without evidence that their "we must do it this way" approach would produce desirable outcomes.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 10 2019, @07:07PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday October 10 2019, @07:07PM (#905342)

        I *do* consider it a tax on the innumerate

        My first thought would be that it is a tax on the immunerate (not really a word, but...) since those without money are those who "gain" the most from fantasizing about a lottery win, and they are most likely and least able to afford to play. However, those unable to manipulate numbers (and/or financially obtuse) certainly also qualify - such as your lower middle income players that work out a "system" which costs them hundreds of dollars a month while they wait for something still less likely than a lightning strike direct on their head.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by Teckla on Friday October 11 2019, @03:16PM (2 children)

      by Teckla (3812) on Friday October 11 2019, @03:16PM (#905812)

      This is exactly how they sell state lotteries, only people without education about the odds of lotteries will actually by lottery tickets, and we can use the money to fund education and make people not so stupid as to buy lottery tickets!

      I think this is both arrogant and wrong.

      Every person I know that plays the lottery knows the impossible odds. They do it for entertainment (i.e., daydreaming for a while about what they would do if they won).

      Sure, some people don't know the odds and buy too many lottery tickets, but it's very possible to play the lottery and not be stupid at the same time. I generally think that people who like to talk about the lottery being a "stupid tax" are just being arrogant, know-it-all weenies.

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday October 11 2019, @04:44PM (1 child)

        by aristarchus (2645) on Friday October 11 2019, @04:44PM (#905884) Journal

        Sure, some people don't know the odds and buy too many lottery tickets, but it's very possible to play the lottery and not be stupid at the same time.

        Sure, it is possible, but only a stupid person would think it likely. I was visiting a "Powerball" state some years ago (rhymes with "Brawndo", but no electrolytes), when the pot had reached a record amount. The State government placed ads on TV and radio advising its citizens not to spend their rent and grocery money on lottery tickets, since the odds are astronomical.

        just being arrogant, know-it-all weenies.

        You're welcome. Ever notice that the reason these people appear this way is that you are an arrogant know-nothing idiot, and the know-it -alls actually do know it all? Now go "entertain" yourself with lottery tickets, so the remaining Kock brothers do not have pay their fair share of taxes. Idiot. Uber driver!

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by TaxiCabJesus on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:56AM (10 children)

    by TaxiCabJesus (6455) on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:56AM (#905093) Homepage

    Driving for the "ride share" companies is sorta like taking a title loan out against your vehicle. On the one hand, the IRS deduction for mileage makes most of your income tax-free, especially if you pad your mileage log. On the other hand, cars are expensive, doubly so if you have no choice but to pay other people to work on them for you.

    The taxi company I drove for had mechanics on staff. They expected cabs to last for 400,000 miles. Cabs went through a major overhaul at 200,000 miles. The shops had a boneyard of priuses to get parts out of. They had standardized on the Prius by 2013 or so. The taxi company started their own "use your own vehicle" program to transport their contracted passengers (health insurance companies, etc). They sold the Prius fleet off in 2016 or 2017.

    I took a few people in my personal car, but thought about the numbers, depreciation, and worried about my transmission. I couldn't justify the wear and tear. A few years after I quit I met a fellow who bought his own prius, drove for all the companies, and liked the gig.

    Taxi driving was an okay gig for me, until the vulture capitalists arrived. https://nakedcapitalism.com/ [nakedcapitalism.com] has a series about how the "ride share" companies' economics will never justify their valuations. https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/05/hubert-horan-will-the-train-wreck-uber-lyft-ipos-finally-change-the-public-narrative-about-ridesharing.html [nakedcapitalism.com], for example.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 10 2019, @07:10PM (7 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday October 10 2019, @07:10PM (#905345)

      "ride share" disruptive tech companies' economics will never justify their valuations - valuations are just perception, and ever since dot-com, crazy valuations have been the norm for tech companies, particularly those with a high profile to the small investor.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @02:14PM (6 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @02:14PM (#905752) Journal
        The disease is the cure. Those valuations will right themselves eventually rewarding the people who perceived wrong with a loss of wealth.
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 11 2019, @03:24PM (5 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 11 2019, @03:24PM (#905821)

          Those valuations will right themselves eventually

          Retail investor driven valuations have been with us for 20 years and counting, in a stock market that rose Phoenix-like from the ashes of total dysfunction a scant 85 years ago.

          It's not a matter of right or wrong, as long as Joe sixpack has easy access to the markets with low trading fees, his perception is a part of the true market valuation - that Joe sixpack values stocks differently than a Wall Street analyst is neither right or wrong, but it is a significant factor in the ask price of stocks when you go to buy them.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @03:41PM (4 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @03:41PM (#905834) Journal
            I see that 20 != 85. You're missing some history there.

            It's not a matter of right or wrong, as long as Joe sixpack has easy access to the markets with low trading fees, his perception is a part of the true market valuation - that Joe sixpack values stocks differently than a Wall Street analyst is neither right or wrong, but it is a significant factor in the ask price of stocks when you go to buy them.

            What does that have to do with the valuation of Uber? I don't buy that it's Joe sixpack propping that up.

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 11 2019, @04:38PM (3 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 11 2019, @04:38PM (#905878)

              Joe sixpack, little old ladies in rural Wyoming, and every other non-professional investor out there are responsible for the valuation multiples of the "shiny new thing" stocks like Apple, Tesla, Chipotle, whatever turns them on. They drive up valuations to much higher multiples of earnings than Wall Street ever would have 25 years and longer ago. They may not individually invest much, but they are far more numerous than retirement fund managers and their kin.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @04:55PM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @04:55PM (#905888) Journal

                Joe sixpack, little old ladies in rural Wyoming, and every other non-professional investor out there are responsible for the valuation multiples of the "shiny new thing" stocks like Apple, Tesla, Chipotle, whatever turns them on.

                And you know this how? I'll point out that a lot of institutional investors own this stuff too.

                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 11 2019, @05:08PM (1 child)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 11 2019, @05:08PM (#905896)

                  I'll point out that a lot of institutional investors own this stuff too.

                  dot com was also driven by the institutional investors jumping on with the mass hysteria.

                  Some of the "forward thinking" institutional investors are investing in Bitcoin today - stick that in your Net Asset Value calculator and smoke it.

                  --
                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
                  • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @05:13PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @05:13PM (#905902) Journal

                    Some of the "forward thinking" institutional investors are investing in Bitcoin today - stick that in your Net Asset Value calculator and smoke it.

                    Sounds like some pretty intense shit. I better not operate heavy machinery today.

    • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday October 10 2019, @11:02PM (1 child)

      by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday October 10 2019, @11:02PM (#905448)

      Driving for the "ride share" companies is sorta like taking a title loan out against your vehicle. On the one hand, the IRS deduction for mileage makes most of your income tax-free, especially if you pad your mileage log. On the other hand, cars are expensive, doubly so if you have no choice but to pay other people to work on them for you.

      My first car was a '66 Chevy Belair. Paid $150 for it. I could and did fix anything that went wrong on the vehicle, most things with just a couple screwdrivers and a combined 1/2"-9/16" box wrench. If cars were still like that one could possibly thrive as a driver (ignoring the 12-15 mpg those vehicles got), but now if you have the tools, space and knowledge to do that amount of repairs on your vehicle you would be far better off working as a mechanic.

  • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @08:00AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @08:00AM (#905114)

    Scab Cabs. All they are, actually. Scabs. We on the left recognize well the taint of Nazi collaborators! Death to the Vichy Americans, and Marshal Pétain, the Uber-driving scum that he was! If you call Uber, you will be censored. Shut down. Silenced. Ridiculed. Mocked. Made light of! Not invited to parties. Ostracized. Made socially incorrect. But, then, you already were.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @08:19AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @08:19AM (#905119)

    putting your life at risk for less than minimum wage.

    Are you driving in Syria or something? Or is this just "walking outside is putting life at risk" paranoia?

    How about making making $2.25/hour and actually risking your life? Oh, that's patriotic. But I guess they give you free plastic legs after yours get blown off. *Benefit*

    https://www.goarmy.com/benefits/money/basic-pay-active-duty-soldiers.html [goarmy.com]

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday October 10 2019, @09:43AM (7 children)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday October 10 2019, @09:43AM (#905133) Journal

    I only know a couple of Uber/Lyft drivers, but this is exactly their mindset. "Look at all the cash I make!" without any thought whatsoever about the expenses it took to make that cash. It's exemplified in his statements, "I made $152.57 on Uber and $104.77 on Lyft for $257.34 in gross pay, which gave me an average of $18.72 per hour before expenses." Then your gross pay wasn't $257.34 per hour, that was your gross income, bud! Go figure out your net income, that's your gross pay. Then take your takes out and you get your net pay.

    Likely is confusion from someone who's never had to make their primary income from a small business. And thinking of it in any other terms (you're the 'contractor', right?) is a ticket to disaster.

    They figure that they'd have their car regardless, and to them it is a sunk asset so they might as well get something back out of it. This ignores that maintenance costs have a variable cost component in direct proportion to the amount the car is driven. Just like the author who makes $257 on luck (tips), declines to really share how much of his income was tips vs. cash, spends $430 on car expenses for a net of -$173.00 (before gas) but still thinks he makes money. If he didn't have a second job or savings how would he have eaten that week? So if we were looking at this on a non-cash basis (as his accounting must have it by his accounts) he should also include interest on the negative cash flow as an expense as well - i.e. the credit card he'd have been living off for his negative week.

    --
    This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:44PM (2 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:44PM (#905195)

      This ignores that maintenance costs have a variable cost component in direct proportion to the amount the car is driven.

      Except for insurance, and maintenance caused by the vehicle just continuing to exist, which is fixed over time.

      Still, I'd say that driving for Uber/Lyft is a profoundly bad deal. I know some folks who've done it, but it was due to desperation, not choice.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:34PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday October 10 2019, @06:34PM (#905331)

        Read your insurance policy, mine specifically excludes using my vehicle for hire and would require a rider / increase in premium if it were to cover such activity. My insurance rates are also scaled according to the mileage we actually drive, not at a fine scale, but the scales are there - we have more vehicles than we need (4 for 2 drivers), and we drive less than average, so we end up paying about 30% less in premiums than we would if we drove each of those vehicles the "average" annual mileage for our age and area.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Thursday October 10 2019, @11:26PM

        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Thursday October 10 2019, @11:26PM (#905458) Journal

        True, although it would surprise the daylights out of me if the two people I know have actually declared to their insurances that they're doing ride hailing. And since they both will have the cars anyway, they don't take either the depreciation or the fixed maintenance into account. On the other hand, they don't save up out of their income for any maintenance costs, either.

        I think if someone chose the right car in the right metropolitan area and lucked out as far as competition goes (something else nobody takes into account - AFAIK anybody can start driving for them at anytime so there's no guarantee on exclusivity) one might be able to survive doing it. If I could have survived it I would not have minded being a cabbie for the rest of my life - but in the place where I was it was not a survivable profession. That's one part the article got very right - it can be a very enjoyable line of work with more fun moment than bad except for the stress of every day needing to produce.

        --
        This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @11:19AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @11:19AM (#905666) Journal
      Apparently you missed the phrase "factoring in $0.50/mile TCO instead".

      Just like the author who makes $257 on luck (tips), declines to really share how much of his income was tips vs. cash, spends $430 on car expenses for a net of -$173.00 (before gas) but still thinks he makes money.

      He would have spent money on those expenses anyway. His "luck" means that more than half his tires were paid for with 14 hours of work.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @02:08PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @02:08PM (#905743) Journal

      Then your gross pay wasn't $257.34 per hour, that was your gross income, bud! Go figure out your net income, that's your gross pay.

      *sigh* Then what's your net pay? The financial adjective "gross" means before costs. Gross pay was used correctly as was gross income above. They're synonyms in this case - it is possible to have gross income that is not gross pay, but that doesn't apply to a ride hailing job.

      • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday October 11 2019, @03:19PM

        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday October 11 2019, @03:19PM (#905817) Journal

        No, it wasn't. Gross income is before expenses. Net income is after expenses. Gross pay is post-expenses (net income) but pre-taxes, just like anyone else.

        Your net pay is post taxes, just like anyone else.

        --
        This sig for rent.
      • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday October 11 2019, @03:52PM

        by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday October 11 2019, @03:52PM (#905841) Journal

        They're synonyms in this case - it is possible to have gross income that is not gross pay, but that doesn't apply to a ride hailing job.

        No, they're not synonyms in this case. He took in $257. He shelled out $430. How much cash does he put into his hands at the end of the week? You can't pay yourself cash you don't have because you spent it on vehicle expenses.
        There are all sorts of ways to rationalize it or account for it (in the accounting sense). The reality, though, is that he had a negative income for that week period despite paying himself $257. And he has to either figure a way to account for that expense over time (hope his other job pays well or he has savings to cover the shortfall while the expense is amortized), he goes broke, or he just ignores it and lets the expenses be paid for by his other life.

        --
        This sig for rent.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @10:25AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @10:25AM (#905142)

    It's interesting that somebody is stupid enough to think about a driving job this way, but the humans do a lot of stupid things. They elect a guy like Trump for high political office, they have an economic system that systematically transfers wealth away from those who produce it towards a tiny elite chosen on a seemingly arbitrary basis, they pollute their only planet without a second thought, they've known how toxic lead is to them since antiquity but they insist on using it for water infrastructure instead of say terracotta....

    And let's not even get started on that Javascript thing! They pick the worst programming language they have ever come up with as a universal application development platform!!! Ugh! Humans are idiots! (Well ok. MUMPS might be worse....)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @10:32AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @10:32AM (#905147)

      JavaScript is the finest language in existence, and I'll make sure to bring more of it to your world.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by theluggage on Thursday October 10 2019, @10:29AM (24 children)

    by theluggage (1797) on Thursday October 10 2019, @10:29AM (#905144)

    One estimate of the Prius TCO for 5 years / 75,000 miles is $34,067 - or $0.454 per mile

    ...but did he buy the Prius specifically and exclusively for Uber, or does it double as his personal/family car? In the latter case, the relevant figure is not TCO/lifetime but the marginal cost per extra mile driven which will be significantly lower. Of course, there's gas and extra wear-and-tear that can be attributed to mileage, but unless it is some kind of rare classic, a car will drop however-many-percent in value the moment you drive it of the forecourt and continue to haemorrhage money even if you keep it in a climate-controlled garage and pay the minimum insurance needed for a 10 mile pleasure trip every Sunday.

    For many people (esp. in the US where you sometimes need a car to cross the road) a car is a necessity - and in the original Uber "ride share" scenario the underlying fixed cost of car ownership is "sunk costs". It's basically a way of earning money from an otherwise non-liquid asset. Go out and buy a second car especially for Uber-ing and the game changes, of course.

    isn't calling around town on a Sunday to get your car fixed also work?

    Whether or not you regard it as "work" it isn't an expense unless you're actively turning down paid work to do it. Otherwise, feel free to pay yourself for your own time. Add a tip, why not? It's not like its costing you anything.

    There's a big difference in "accountancy" between a part-time cash-on-the-side "sole trader" gig and running a formal company with its own assets and employees (even if you're the only employee).

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Thursday October 10 2019, @12:38PM (6 children)

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 10 2019, @12:38PM (#905165)

      marginal cost per extra mile driven

      Those apps can be hyper profitable if you're commuting 20 miles anyway with an extra passenger seat, so if you drive an extra mile at each end of the route for a paying passenger, while getting paid for all 22 miles.

      Of course as with most "picking up nickels in front of the steam roller" type of gigs, most transactions will never be that profitable and people will be greedy at taking ever lower profit routes until they're paying for the privilege of being a taxi driver...

      I'm still a little unclear on the insurance company POV of using your personal car for an unlicensed illegal contracting business. Ditto my regular drivers license without the chauffeur upgrade designation. If you're going to expose yourself to substantial legal and financial risk for a minimum wage McJob, why not try something that's faster, more profitable, and less risky like small time weed or shoplifting? I mean... if a homeless guy can root thru the recycle bins and get well over 1000 ten cent recycling soda cans in Michigan per hour thats like five times uber pay rates...

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @03:00PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @03:00PM (#905228)

        I wouldn't be surprised if Über self-insured drivers when a passenger is in a vehicle.
        The lack of a chauffeur license is probably covered by the general capitulation of the state to this company with deepish pockets and lobbying power.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 10 2019, @07:12PM (3 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday October 10 2019, @07:12PM (#905347)

          Well, I'll take "not surprised" and "probably" from an Anonymous post on the Internet any day, over the alternative of actually reading my policy terms and relevant state statutes.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @09:47PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @09:47PM (#905406)

            Do you have anything of intelligence to add? Guess not.

            Your "relevant state statutes" seem to be at odds with an apparent flourishing illegal transportation company and thousands of individual lawbreakers.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Friday October 11 2019, @11:38AM (1 child)

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @11:38AM (#905673)

            general capitulation of the state to this company with deepish pockets and lobbying power

            In all fairness its not a new business model.

            Really, these services are not innovating the business model of being illegal taxi operators, nor are they innovating the tech side of being a taxi operator. They're just using dotcom 2.0 money to bootstrap large scale corruption.

            My guess is the next big corporate financialization move will be corporatizing food trucks. Who needs illegal indie food when the bankers can fund a flood of the streets with the "McDonalds (tm) Branded Food Truck" selling McWhoppers or whatever.

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 11 2019, @03:10PM

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 11 2019, @03:10PM (#905805)

              flood of the streets with the "McDonalds (tm) Branded Food Truck" selling McWhoppers

              You are totally on to something there... an English (UK) friend of mine said that the great thing about the chain food was that you could expect a certain minimum level of quality, not great, but at least you probably won't get food poisoning or more disgusting than expected food (though, those McNuggets were pretty far out there...)

              Anyway, I could see a Chipotle branded food truck army easily sweeping the nation, particularly if they could deliver at the same quality and price point as their brick and mortar stores.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @11:21AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @11:21AM (#905667) Journal

        Of course as with most "picking up nickels in front of the steam roller" type of gigs, most transactions will never be that profitable and people will be greedy at taking ever lower profit routes until they're paying for the privilege of being a taxi driver...

        Then they'll learn and stop doing that. Not seeing what the problem is supposed to be here.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 10 2019, @07:24PM (16 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday October 10 2019, @07:24PM (#905351)

      Sure, if you don't need a real job, have plenty of money and the desire to do this for fun, it's cheaper than almost any hobby out there, you might even make a little pocket money for your trouble.

      Unfortunately, these operations are skating on the illegal side of enough lines that they are obtaining an unfair advantage over conventionally operated and regulated taxi businesses, while offering no clear advantages to the Uber drivers that the Taxi drivers don't already have.

      The globally centralized owning corporations (Uber/Lyft) are extracting rather large marginal profits from the line-crossings at the expense of the established Taxi operations and the Uber/Lyft drivers, and turning those profits around to lobby for changes in the laws to benefit their business model. If it weren't for the very real financial hit that the drivers are taking in this process, it might be a good thing, but it's not like they're going to turn around and start paying their drivers better after they get the laws bent in their favor.

      If you want a hobby, join a social club. If you want a job that pays actual income, Uber, Lyft, Amway, Primerica Life Insurance, etc. are not actual viable income producing operations for anyone but the top levels of the organization. People who actually need money would be better off working a minimum wage job with no benefits.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @11:30AM (15 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @11:30AM (#905669) Journal

        Unfortunately, these operations are skating on the illegal side of enough lines that they are obtaining an unfair advantage over conventionally operated and regulated taxi businesses, while offering no clear advantages to the Uber drivers that the Taxi drivers don't already have.

        The cartel's existence is more of a problem than the supposed unfairness of competing with someone who got around the barrier to entry.

        As usual with these phony analyses, we're ignoring some big terms. Here, the biggest is the rider. Ride hailing wouldn't have soared like it has, if the riders didn't desperately want it. They're speaking via their shift in business to the ride hailing services as to the value of conventional operation and regulation, namely, that they don't value it much at all.

        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 11 2019, @01:50PM (1 child)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday October 11 2019, @01:50PM (#905729)

          the biggest is the rider. Ride hailing wouldn't have soared like it has, if the riders didn't desperately want it.

          And that's a fair point. Not a point that should allow the Uber/Lyfts of the world to financially abuse their drivers, but anyone who used taxicabs in the 1970s, 80s and 90s would clearly prefer a more rider oriented system than "the cartel" provided.

          In 2004, I caught a ride from a private taxi owner/operator at the airport, just a random pickup, but... he had a nice car (not too keen on the air freshener, but it probably did mask random previous passenger scents), and he gave me his card. From that point until I moved out of town, anytime I needed a ride to/from the airport I'd call him a day ahead to schedule him to give me the ride, he basically operated a Limo at normal Taxi rates. Why didn't more owner/operators like him appear before Uber/Lyft?

          Then there are the "Limos" that operated basically as illegal taxicabs in NYC in the late 90s (last time I was there), you were supposed to use them like I used my guy in Houston, but in practice their cars were little nicer than the badged yellow cabs, and they'd pick up new fares as they dropped off their existing fares in the city. Little better than Taxis in overall experience, and they contributed significantly to the perpetual traffic problems in Manhattan while not really providing better "coverage" than the badged cabs alone did.

          The people I know who use Uber do so mostly because the cars tend to be nicer, and the drivers tend to be a little "more like them" not driving a cab to feed the family. If "the cartel" could take these lessons away from Uber/Lyft, and maybe create a hailing/tracking/rating app while they are at it, the differences between Uber/Lyft/Taxi should dissolve, implying also that Uber/Lyft should come under the Taxi regulations - because Death Cab for Cutie isn't just the name of a band...

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @02:04PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @02:04PM (#905739) Journal

            Not a point that should allow the Uber/Lyfts of the world to financially abuse their drivers

            Given how little "financially abused" means here, I strongly disagree.

            Why didn't more owner/operators like him appear before Uber/Lyft?

            Sounds like something for you to think about.

            Then there are the "Limos" that operated basically as illegal taxicabs in NYC in the late 90s (last time I was there)

            Yet another workaround for the taxi cartel. Be sure to plant some flowers after you bury your own argument.

            If "the cartel" could take these lessons away from Uber/Lyft, and maybe create a hailing/tracking/rating app while they are at it

            They didn't. And any changes will happen because of competition from Uber and like.

        • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday October 11 2019, @03:28PM (12 children)

          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday October 11 2019, @03:28PM (#905825) Journal

          Which is not a fair comparison so long as the conventional operation and regulation still exists, and it does exist for reasons beyond providing profit to cab company owners and medallion holders. Blow away the current regulatory system, go ahead. Less than five years you'll see the regulation reoccur and incorporate the ride hailing services. It will be demanded by the people who will cannot afford to pay ridiculous surge prices (all the traffic can bear, you know...) and file lawsuits once the ride hailers no longer have to maintain their insurance policies for drivers (because they have no competition that will be either offloaded on the driver or offered at a monthly cost).

          --
          This sig for rent.
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 11 2019, @03:58PM (11 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 11 2019, @03:58PM (#905844) Journal

            Which is not a fair comparison so long as the conventional operation and regulation still exists

            I don't mind ending it.

            and it does exist for reasons beyond providing profit to cab company owners and medallion holders.

            So what? There are other, more effective ways to achieve those reasons, such as rating systems or just not giving a damn about the reason.

            Less than five years you'll see the regulation reoccur and incorporate the ride hailing services.

            And you'll see the costs of getting around in cities go up again. It's a terrible ending, assuming it actually happens that is.

            It will be demanded by the people who will cannot afford to pay ridiculous surge prices

            They don't vote.

            and file lawsuits once the ride hailers no longer have to maintain their insurance policies for drivers (because they have no competition that will be either offloaded on the driver or offered at a monthly cost).

            I notice you used the word "hailers" not "hailer". Competition comes from multiple parties doing the same thing. The driver isn't going to accept this crap without switching to another ride hailer that doesn't do that, or even just get out of the business altogether.

            • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Saturday October 12 2019, @12:02AM (10 children)

              by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Saturday October 12 2019, @12:02AM (#906111) Journal

              I don't mind ending it. … So what? There are other, more effective ways to achieve those reasons, such as rating systems or just not giving a damn about the reason.

              Those who ignore the lessons of history, or fail to appreciate them in the first place..... And you haven't solved the reasons other than thinking "industry will provide," which is doubtful.

              And you'll see the costs of getting around in cities go up again. It's a terrible ending, assuming it actually happens that is.

              Depends upon for whom. Maybe quality will have gone up in the interim when the traditional regulations aren't present.

              It will be demanded by the people who will cannot afford to pay ridiculous surge prices

              They don't vote.

              Since everyone will be paying ridiculous surge prices that would include the electorate.

              and file lawsuits once the ride hailers no longer have to maintain their insurance policies for drivers (because they have no competition that will be either offloaded on the driver or offered at a monthly cost).

              I notice you used the word "hailers" not "hailer". Competition comes from multiple parties doing the same thing. The driver isn't going to accept this crap without switching to another ride hailer that doesn't do that, or even just get out of the business altogether.

              The ride hailing companies' competition isn't each other (not yet) - it's the traditional companies who are required to maintain business insurance who are the competition. Get rid of the competition and they no longer need to maintain the insurance. And once none of them have to maintain it none of them will. Assuming this little experiment survives (because last time I looked none of them were profitable yet) there will not be an alternative for the driver. And right now the industry is, in the main, still surviving on the notion that there's always another sucker who will drive for them. People roll the dice now with their vehicles equity, I would guarantee that there will be contractor-employees who will continue to do so with their insurance.

              --
              This sig for rent.
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 14 2019, @02:06PM (9 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 14 2019, @02:06PM (#906923) Journal

                I don't mind ending it. … So what? There are other, more effective ways to achieve those reasons, such as rating systems or just not giving a damn about the reason.

                Those who ignore the lessons of history, or fail to appreciate them in the first place..... And you haven't solved the reasons other than thinking "industry will provide," which is doubtful.

                You haven't even shown that we should bother to "solve" the reasons. My view is that the primary purpose of the reasons to create a cartel.

                The ride hailing companies' competition isn't each other

                Of course, they're competing with each other.

                It will be demanded by the people who will cannot afford to pay ridiculous surge prices

                They don't vote.

                Since everyone will be paying ridiculous surge prices that would include the electorate.

                The part of the electorate that votes can afford the surge prices. The electorate will also get rides at peak times and profit from driving for ride hailing services during those peak times.

                • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday October 14 2019, @04:33PM (8 children)

                  by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday October 14 2019, @04:33PM (#907005) Journal

                  You haven't even shown that we should bother to "solve" the reasons. My view is that the primary purpose of the reasons to create a cartel.

                  Interesting. Certainly cartels have formed, but just because a cartel exists does not mean it is wrong to have one. (Nor does it mean that it's right to have one, either). The primary reasons for regulation were originally passenger safety, consumer protection, and elimination of unnecessary congestion while providing the needed number of taxis / equal distribution of service. Technology does not change that and deregulation does not achieve those ends.

                  Of course, they're competing

                  Really. Haven't seen any evidence of that. Have seen lots of evidence of them fighting to avoid livery regulations. Then again, quote only half of someone's sentence you can make up the other half.

                  The part of the electorate that votes can afford the surge prices. The electorate will also get rides at peak times and profit from driving for ride hailing services during those peak times.

                  I'll just leave that as [citation needed]. Although I do note that the political trend these days does indeed seem to be, "support those who have the power, screw those who don't."

                  Overall this is simply one of those areas where the good of regulation outweigh the bad side effects.

                  --
                  This sig for rent.
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 14 2019, @05:30PM (7 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 14 2019, @05:30PM (#907044) Journal

                    but just because a cartel exists does not mean it is wrong to have one.

                    I guess it depends whether you're profiting from the cartel or not as to whether it is "wrong to have one".

                    The primary reasons for regulation were originally passenger safety, consumer protection, and elimination of unnecessary congestion while providing the needed number of taxis / equal distribution of service.

                    And the primary reason against them (or perhaps rather the reason for the primary reasons) is that cartel. Seems your argument is pretty shoddy.

                    Haven't seen any evidence of that.

                    Which again, doesn't mean anything.

                    Have seen lots of evidence of them fighting to avoid livery regulations.

                    Because that is somehow relevant to the discussion. Sure.

                    I'll just leave that as [citation needed]. Although I do note that the political trend these days does indeed seem to be, "support those who have the power, screw those who don't."

                    Again what seems to you doesn't have a basis in reality. The thing missed about surge pricing is that it makes lots of sense economically. When everyone wants to ride, where are the drivers coming from? In the stagnant taxi cartel situation, there is little incentive to put more taxis on the road. Sure, there's more business, but as you noted there's no higher fares and more congestion, plus other practical matters like paying more people or more overtime, meaning any taxis out there have a reduced profit margin.

                    In the ride hailing case, it means a huge lure to draw out the drivers who only come out for surge pricing. Driving in heavy traffic is not much more costly, even counting slow traffic and higher risk of accident, to the driver than normal city traffic. Yet it is much more profitable. Thus, we see a very different and far more beneficial response to surges. The ride hailers get a lot more drivers on the road. The taxi cartels slouch because there's little in addressing surges for them.

                    • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday October 14 2019, @07:08PM (6 children)

                      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday October 14 2019, @07:08PM (#907091) Journal

                      I guess it depends whether you're profiting from the cartel or not as to whether it is "wrong to have one".

                      Well, it depends on whether the cartel is providing benefits, and to whom, yes. If I as a member of the general public benefit by having a requirement that a taxi can't refuse to pick me up because I live in a dangerous neighborhood, or that the company can be in trouble for not doing so, I have benefited. If I am aware that it is going to cost me $10.00 to go from point A to point B and that this price cannot be arbitrarily raised to $20.00 because there aren't enough drivers, I have benefited. It doesn't have to be monetary profit to suggest the system is good. (Although having a company that has been in business for 50 years and dealing with them is some indicator they will be here next year, instead of a ride hailing company that is doing nothing but burn through venture capital and has no presented plan for how they will continue to operate indefintely).

                      And the primary reason against them (or perhaps rather the reason for the primary reasons) is that cartel. Seems your argument is pretty shoddy.

                      Just as yours is because, "Cartel bad!!!" is about what you've come up with so far. You haven't begun to suggest why that is a bad thing.

                      Which again, doesn't mean anything.

                      Except that you haven't proven that Uber and Lyft have taken meaningful acts to compete with each other over and above how they've fought regulations. It's your ball to prove that, not mine.

                      Again what seems to you doesn't have a basis in reality. The thing missed about surge pricing is that it makes lots of sense economically. When everyone wants to ride, where are the drivers coming from? In the stagnant taxi cartel situation, there is little incentive to put more taxis on the road. Sure, there's more business, but as you noted there's no higher fares and more congestion, plus other practical matters like paying more people or more overtime, meaning any taxis out there have a reduced profit margin.

                      In the ride hailing case, it means a huge lure to draw out the drivers who only come out for surge pricing. Driving in heavy traffic is not much more costly, even counting slow traffic and higher risk of accident, to the driver than normal city traffic. Yet it is much more profitable. Thus, we see a very different and far more beneficial response to surges. The ride hailers get a lot more drivers on the road. The taxi cartels slouch because there's little in addressing surges for them.

                      If you say so. I'd disagree, but I'm already done discussing it.

                      --
                      This sig for rent.
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 15 2019, @07:16AM (5 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 15 2019, @07:16AM (#907279) Journal

                        Well, it depends on whether the cartel is providing benefits, and to whom, yes.

                        Here, we've already established that the cartels are having such trouble providing those benefits, that there was a massive shift by the riders to ride hailing over a few year period. But in general, the reputation of generic cartels is deserved. The lack of competition routinely yields dysfunctional businesses and markets. Merely asserting that cartels might not be bad in this one case is ignorant. They consistently cause all kinds of trouble.

                        Except that you haven't proven that Uber and Lyft have taken meaningful acts to compete with each other over and above how they've fought regulations. It's your ball to prove that, not mine.

                        By meaningful acts, you obviously don't mean have the same markets. That's the competition right there. It's bizarre how you can ignore that they operation in the same cities, doing the same of coverage, and even have to lure the same drivers who can pick and choose rides from either. Those aren't "acts" in the same way that lobbying is, but they are competition.

                        If you say so. I'd disagree, but I'm already done discussing it.

                        You never started discussing surge pricing so it is no consequence that you're done.

                        Supply and demand is what's going on here. If this were prices in a free market, it would track increases and decreases in either, not merely be fixed - which incidentally is another example of the failure of the cartel market. So when you have a "surge", a huge jump in demand, you should see a rise in the price of the service. It naturally encourages riders to wait for better times and drivers to come out and serve the riders still in the market. I attribute your continued resistance to this idea as an example of your economic innumeracy.

                        • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday October 15 2019, @02:25PM (4 children)

                          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Tuesday October 15 2019, @02:25PM (#907367) Journal

                          Here, we've already established that the cartels are having such trouble providing those benefits, that there was a massive shift by the riders to ride hailing over a few year period. But in general, the reputation of generic cartels is deserved. The lack of competition routinely yields dysfunctional businesses and markets. Merely asserting that cartels might not be bad in this one case is ignorant. They consistently cause all kinds of trouble.

                          No, what we've proven is that a company freed from regulations proves that price controls are good to those with fixed or lower incomes. There is some preliminary research done like here [citylab.com], although I have not vetted it for sourcing, that indicates when ride-hailing services enter the market that fatal crashes and overall crash rates increase. If Uber and Lyft can point to data that establishes they have better safety records than mainstream services I'd like to see it. Driver screening, according to Investopedia, is variable - the livery services are more strict than some environments, possibly, and not as strict as others.

                          So what we've proven is that livery services are capable of evading the consumer protection, have no proof of being more safe as transport, and uncertainty as to the efficacy of their screening processes. Things that are given as mandatory costs to many cab services.

                          By meaningful acts, you obviously don't mean have the same markets. That's the competition right there. It's bizarre how you can ignore that they operation in the same cities, doing the same of coverage, and even have to lure the same drivers who can pick and choose rides from either. Those aren't "acts" in the same way that lobbying is, but they are competition.

                          No, by meaningful acts I mean how much of their bottom line is dedicated to promoting their services over the other one. How much of their resources do they dedicate to outdoing the other service? (As opposed to trying to fight the regulations that society has found are necessary for consumer protection and safety). Two businesses can exist in the same market and not be concerned in the slightest with their competition. Although consumers have to choose them that does not mean that the businesses are actively competing against each other for that customer's business.

                          You never started discussing surge pricing so it is no consequence that you're done.

                          Supply and demand is what's going on here. If this were prices in a free market, it would track increases and decreases in either, not merely be fixed - which incidentally is another example of the failure of the cartel market. So when you have a "surge", a huge jump in demand, you should see a rise in the price of the service. It naturally encourages riders to wait for better times and drivers to come out and serve the riders still in the market. I attribute your continued resistance to this idea as an example of your economic innumeracy.

                          And when it comes to providing essential and necessary services you do not allow a free market. Regulation ensures a price to service ratio. I'm sure the citizens of California wonder why they allowed a deregulated market decoupling the power from the provider, and have been doing so since Enron. But I digress.

                          Prices are fixed not because the cartel market wants it that way, not in my experience. Cab companies would much rather be allowed to set their own rates. But since cabs operate as a transportation service to the public, then the government has a natural and proper interest in ensuring that the service can meet minimum guidelines.

                          The way it works in cab services is that the companies are allocated a fixed number of licenses. If that number is insufficient then the government will extend additional licensing to other companies, and if the demand is truly there then there will be another company entering the market - the supply will come if the demand is truly there at those rates. If nobody else would enter the market then the government has learned that rates are too low for competition. Now there might be some objective data saying it doesn't work that way, and I'd like to see that if it is. In the absence of objective data, my personal experience has been that I have never lived in a city that didn't have adequate cab service. "Adequate" to me means an intact car that is safe to drive that was available within a half hour window. I can also tell you that when I drove a cab they regulated the number of drivers on such that everybody got a bit (we paid per mile driven rather than a fixed lease, but at city-regulated taxi rates per trip,) nobody got nothing, and people had to wait one hour maximum (and usually didn't wait more than 20 minutes). But that wasn't a major metropolitan area.

                          --
                          This sig for rent.
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 16 2019, @12:38AM (3 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 16 2019, @12:38AM (#907650) Journal

                            No, what we've proven is that a company freed from regulations proves that price controls are good to those with fixed or lower incomes.

                            Utter nonsense. You haven't even thought about this.

                            First, in non-surge priced hours, the ride hailing services are cheaper. Hence, better for those with little money to spend on transportation (and for some reason we want these people hanging out in a high cost of living region). Second, price-capped means supply doesn't meet demand. Hence, everyone pays for that price-cap with delayed service. You have to wait!

                            No, by meaningful acts I mean how much of their bottom line is dedicated to promoting their services over the other one.

                            Sorry, that's marketing not competition.

                            Two businesses can exist in the same market and not be concerned in the slightest with their competition.

                            Sure, if they are a cartel that has worked out no-compete strategies. That's not the case here.

                            Prices are fixed not because the cartel market wants it that way, not in my experience. Cab companies would much rather be allowed to set their own rates. But since cabs operate as a transportation service to the public, then the government has a natural and proper interest in ensuring that the service can meet minimum guidelines.

                            And becomes a target for bribery and corruption. Sorry, I don't buy the argument you're selling here. In so many cities, they made it worse not better because of that alleged natural and proper interest which went to creating and enforcing those taxi cartels.

                            If nobody else would enter the market then the government has learned that rates are too low for competition.

                            Point out a taxi cartel anywhere in the world that has a problem with rates being too low. The point of these games is to restrict supply and elevate taxi prices. Government is notoriously clueless and/or venal on this sort of thing. There are a number of examples where they've ignored such problems for decades.

                            • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday October 16 2019, @04:48PM (2 children)

                              by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday October 16 2019, @04:48PM (#907930) Journal

                              No, what we've proven is that a company freed from regulations proves that price controls are good to those with fixed or lower incomes.

                              Utter nonsense. You haven't even thought about this.

                              First, in non-surge priced hours, the ride hailing services are cheaper. Hence, better for those with little money to spend on transportation (and for some reason we want these people hanging out in a high cost of living region). Second, price-capped means supply doesn't meet demand. Hence, everyone pays for that price-cap with delayed service. You have to wait!

                              Not at all. First, 'surge pricing' also means that they can charge whatever they want to whenever they want to, and you have not shown at all that the average prices for the given consumer are cheaper under your method. Price capped means supply and demand are irrelevant to price, because supply and demand are met by controlling the number of licenses granted. Under your system we should then go whole hog and have buses charge twice their rates during the peak commute hours. You tell me how somebody with a hard budget of $X per month for transportation to work will survive when the cab companies are bankrupted and the ride hailers want $X*2 per month on average - nothing will stop the ridehailers from doing so when the richer can afford to pay that and the poor cannot.

                              Surge pricing is synonymous with price gouging. [theverge.com] The agreement reached in that article doesn't even change that, really.

                              No, by meaningful acts I mean how much of their bottom line is dedicated to promoting their services over the other one.

                              Sorry, that's marketing not competition.

                              So that would be saying you don't know how much of their resources they are allocating towards competing against the other one. Gotcha.

                              Sure, if they are a cartel that has worked out no-compete strategies. That's not the case here.

                              Or if they are businesses that don't really care about what the competition is doing. Doesn't take a cartel for that, just two independent parties not caring about what the other is doing. I have seen many examples of this.

                              And becomes a target for bribery and corruption. Sorry, I don't buy the argument you're selling here. In so many cities, they made it worse not better because of that alleged natural and proper interest which went to creating and enforcing those taxi cartels.

                              I'll agree to disagree, then.

                              If nobody else would enter the market then the government has learned that rates are too low for competition.

                              Point out a taxi cartel anywhere in the world that has a problem with rates being too low. The point of these games is to restrict supply and elevate taxi prices. Government is notoriously clueless and/or venal on this sort of thing. There are a number of examples where they've ignored such problems for decades.

                              The point of these games is to provide a taxi price that is profitable to the company and at least nominally sustainable to the driver, the latter being something the ride-hailing companies don't give a damn about.
                              Reverse ask: Point out to me where supply was too low such that additional licensees would be necessary. Citing Uber and Lyft doesn't count - they are not independently sustainable yet and may never be so and their lower prices are currently subsidized using VC and IPO money to shore up their inadequate business models.

                              --
                              This sig for rent.
                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 16 2019, @09:18PM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 16 2019, @09:18PM (#908004) Journal

                                First, 'surge pricing' also means that they can charge whatever they want to whenever they want to

                                Yet they don't. Short answer is competition, including the sort you choose not to recognize because you don't see marketing for it.

                                and you have not shown at all that the average prices for the given consumer are cheaper under your method

                                And yet the ride hailing services are gaining market share somehow. There must be a reason for it.

                                So that would be saying you don't know how much of their resources they are allocating towards competing against the other one. Gotcha.

                                Of course. Why do you think that's relevant when you don't how much of their resources that they're devoting to anything else either? This fits into a pattern.

                                I'll agree to disagree, then.

                                Yes, let's ignore history.

                                Or if they are businesses that don't really care about what the competition is doing.

                                Or if God has made them that way. We can come up with all sorts of irrational reasons why something could be, even though it's not.

                                The point of these games is to provide a taxi price that is profitable to the company and at least nominally sustainable to the driver, the latter being something the ride-hailing companies don't give a damn about.

                                Sure, the unicorns make it that way. It doesn't matter what the ride hailing companies don't give a damn about. They don't get drivers, if the prices aren't nominally sustainable.

                                Point out to me where supply was too low such that additional licensees would be necessary. Citing Uber and Lyft doesn't count - they are not independently sustainable yet and may never be so and their lower prices are currently subsidized using VC and IPO money to shore up their inadequate business models.

                                Everywhere that restricts supply in the first place.

                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 16 2019, @09:22PM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 16 2019, @09:22PM (#908008) Journal

                                Point out to me where supply was too low such that additional licensees would be necessary.

                                I'll note as special examples New York City and London.

(1) 2