Obviously this means California should intervene even more on behalf of its gig workers. If earnings are forced to 0 then they can only go up afterwards!
Took a lyft today in Socal, the driver told me I'm the first person he gave a ride to in six hours. Hes worried how he will make any money at all in the next few months.
I am hoping that folks who are in industries that are shutting down can find other work in industries that are ramping up. If you are an Uber driver you obviously should not be driving right now unless it is to a job interview. Don't wait. You know the outlook is grim for awhile.
I have heard that amazon is temporarily hiring 100k people. Just work there! /s
Honestly, this is not the fault of Uber or Lift or any other company. This is clearly a systematic problem. Regulate uber - then it becomes not "competitive", drivers will lose their jobs and will be forced into another dead-end, low-wage, not secure job.
> I have heard that amazon is temporarily hiring 100k people. Just work there! /s
Curious, why is that sarcasm? Are you insinuating the average Uber driver is not cut out for the work of picking groceries / fulfilling orders at Amazon?
I’d say off the top of my head: The average Uber driver has a lease on a car that is way more expensive than what they would need individually, and probably doesn’t live next to an Amazon logistics centre
More likely, Uber serves a very specific demographic, which may or may not be available to Amazon: people who work in other cities, physical limitations, social constraints, etc.
Say what you will about their employment tactics, they are certainly one of the most flexible employers out there.
I think the sarcasm is just highlighting the 'oh just do something else' refrain is not as easy as just saying it.
It may be that easy single in your 20s and with a bit of savings (or the ability to search while still employed) but no one should really be saying it as throwaway line as it diminishes the hardship involved and how people really behave.
It's supposed to be independent contractor work where clients are spoon-fed to you.
Having done a lot of independent contractor work, I know I had to hustle during lean times. If someone thought it wasn't susceptible to competition and market forces, they were a bit naive. Frankly, they were well insulated against that possibility compared to most other industries.
supplementary to the point where courts are deciding they should be treated as employees instead of contractors?
"supposed to be"? have you seen any widespread efforts by Uber /Lyft to inform people of this, or to otherwise limit the rides or offers they may take?
I got a notification today (Bay Area) from the UberEats app saying that they will not charge any delivery fee for all local restaurants. That ought to help the restaurants and drivers, though I wonder how Uber can keep that up since it will eat right into their profits...
Uber has been bleeding money for awhile now. What has kept them afloat is the fact that people keep using them and their fleet of drivers. But if people stop doing that, it's going to get real hairy for Uber and Lyft.
Uber has got it all wrong. They should collect utmost 2% of bill, like what the credit cards do. A pathogen that kills the host is not very communicable, and will not live long in system.
The problem isn't unique to this industry, yeah. But it's still a shame considering that Uber and Lyft drivers are already not having the easiest time.
Also, am I wrong to think that the recovery won't be too swift even after the quarantine is lifted? For one, the economy will be hit hard so fewer people will take taxi rides. Plus, many people will likely keep fearing social interaction and being locked in a car with a person that drives strangers around all day could put people off. Our (modern) society hasn't dealt with this type of thing before so there's not really an easy path to recovery.
Based on the U.S. Department of Labor's release a couple days ago, it sounds like states are responsible for creating laws to pay benefits where workers aren't working due to the coronavirus [0]. Importantly, "federal law does not require an employee to quit in order to receive benefits due to the impact of COVID-19".
I wish federal laws were put in place to protect people's income during the outbreak. I wonder whether Trump is passing the buck to states to avoid backlash against himself.
There has to be a place for flexible/on-demand work these days along with a fair way to restrict it so an intentionally unreliable job doesn't become the one thing many people rely on for a paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle.
Maybe it's something along the lines of getting "employee" protections once you do a certain amount of work which will result in it being much more difficult/competitive to get those "employee positions" and people who work less will be in higher demand / be paid more.
The real problem, I think, is how much money is being sucked away from nearly everyone for real estate which is ending up being owned by banks earning mortgage payments or investment groups earning rent. There's no particularly strong reason why this should be allowed to happen, but it is.
I pay far more for rent than I do for taxes, and the former group only "deserves" all of this money because they "own". They do and have done very little in the way of actual useful work.
This is the core of the issue, doing hard work which allows you to permanently purchase the hard work of others in a way which grows and compounds.
I'm fine with it in certain contexts, moreso when the investment involves risk and uncertainty.
But being able to buy and collect rent (in various ways) from the basics of life (and scaling that rent up to market rates, or the highest anyone will pay without leaving) ... causes me, and society, problems.
>But being able to buy and collect rent (in various ways) from the basics of life (and scaling that rent up to market rates, or the highest anyone will pay without leaving)
This is how every other good in society works though and it generally works out in the consumers favour. Food is right up there with shelter in the basics of life and it's been driven way down as a percentage of labour that we have to perform in order to earn it. Same as clothing.
The problem is that housing has super high constraints on it and that's largely caused by private home ownership not landlords. It creates protectionism for land value reducing supply driving up both home prices and rent costs. Then because getting a place to rent becomes an ordeal, instability in your current living situation becomes a big deal, so theres a bunch of protection around eviction. Then because you can't boot someone easily you be more selective, vet harder, more likely to leave it vacant if you cant find someone good; which reduces supply even further.
There are no policies keeping the price of food or pants high because 99.9% of us benefit from low prices for those things which makes it harder to do politically. The same cannot be said for housing. Sure the amount of people that benefit from high rent is a tiny percentage of the population but its intrinsically linked to housing prices overall, which a lot of people do benefit from being high.
If 99.9% of people rented then abundant and cheap housing would be a priority for government at all levels. Renting isn't the cause of societal problems, it's private ownership. Specifically, politically active private ownership.
Maybe Uber could sell credits to their customers and pass the money through to the drivers. I mean I won’t be using Uber much at the moment but eventually I will. Buying ride credits at a discount would make sense.
33 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 78.1 ms ] threadHonestly, this is not the fault of Uber or Lift or any other company. This is clearly a systematic problem. Regulate uber - then it becomes not "competitive", drivers will lose their jobs and will be forced into another dead-end, low-wage, not secure job.
It is the system.
Curious, why is that sarcasm? Are you insinuating the average Uber driver is not cut out for the work of picking groceries / fulfilling orders at Amazon?
Say what you will about their employment tactics, they are certainly one of the most flexible employers out there.
It may be that easy single in your 20s and with a bit of savings (or the ability to search while still employed) but no one should really be saying it as throwaway line as it diminishes the hardship involved and how people really behave.
Having done a lot of independent contractor work, I know I had to hustle during lean times. If someone thought it wasn't susceptible to competition and market forces, they were a bit naive. Frankly, they were well insulated against that possibility compared to most other industries.
"supposed to be"? have you seen any widespread efforts by Uber /Lyft to inform people of this, or to otherwise limit the rides or offers they may take?
Also, am I wrong to think that the recovery won't be too swift even after the quarantine is lifted? For one, the economy will be hit hard so fewer people will take taxi rides. Plus, many people will likely keep fearing social interaction and being locked in a car with a person that drives strangers around all day could put people off. Our (modern) society hasn't dealt with this type of thing before so there's not really an easy path to recovery.
I wish federal laws were put in place to protect people's income during the outbreak. I wonder whether Trump is passing the buck to states to avoid backlash against himself.
[0] https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/eta/eta20200312-0
Maybe it's something along the lines of getting "employee" protections once you do a certain amount of work which will result in it being much more difficult/competitive to get those "employee positions" and people who work less will be in higher demand / be paid more.
The real problem, I think, is how much money is being sucked away from nearly everyone for real estate which is ending up being owned by banks earning mortgage payments or investment groups earning rent. There's no particularly strong reason why this should be allowed to happen, but it is.
I pay far more for rent than I do for taxes, and the former group only "deserves" all of this money because they "own". They do and have done very little in the way of actual useful work.
I'm fine with it in certain contexts, moreso when the investment involves risk and uncertainty.
But being able to buy and collect rent (in various ways) from the basics of life (and scaling that rent up to market rates, or the highest anyone will pay without leaving) ... causes me, and society, problems.
This is how every other good in society works though and it generally works out in the consumers favour. Food is right up there with shelter in the basics of life and it's been driven way down as a percentage of labour that we have to perform in order to earn it. Same as clothing.
The problem is that housing has super high constraints on it and that's largely caused by private home ownership not landlords. It creates protectionism for land value reducing supply driving up both home prices and rent costs. Then because getting a place to rent becomes an ordeal, instability in your current living situation becomes a big deal, so theres a bunch of protection around eviction. Then because you can't boot someone easily you be more selective, vet harder, more likely to leave it vacant if you cant find someone good; which reduces supply even further.
There are no policies keeping the price of food or pants high because 99.9% of us benefit from low prices for those things which makes it harder to do politically. The same cannot be said for housing. Sure the amount of people that benefit from high rent is a tiny percentage of the population but its intrinsically linked to housing prices overall, which a lot of people do benefit from being high.
If 99.9% of people rented then abundant and cheap housing would be a priority for government at all levels. Renting isn't the cause of societal problems, it's private ownership. Specifically, politically active private ownership.
https://www.uber.com/us/en/ride/how-it-works/uber-cash/