Life Behind the Wheel

[don]

Re: Life Behind the Wheel

Please explain how someone voluntarily using their own vehicle to earn money is equivalent to "privatize the profit/socialize the risk"

Uber is not the driver. Airbnb doesn't provide the b&b. That's left to the 'socialized proles'. (nice try)

[LorenS]

Re: Cali's Commercial Gambit

Is there anyone here that has taken a dozen or more taxi rides and a dozen or more Uber rides in the last few years that believes the customer experience is comparable? From my experience and everyone I've talked to the superiority of the Uber experience is undeniable. It's not just about the app either. In fact I would say that's only about half or maybe less of it.

The cars are nicer, cleaner, smell better.
The drivers are more polite, speak fluent english, smell better.
The Uber drivers drive their car like it's their car. Taxi drivers drive so maniacally that they inspired a series of video games called "Crazy Taxi".

I have a hard time believing that anyone who thinks riding in a taxi is safer than riding in an Uber has actually ridden in both. News Flash: Most taxi drivers also have cell phones and are constantly on them.

This isn't to say that every taxi is bad. And I agree that everyone should play by the same rules. However, when the rules are designed to kill competition and have resulted in the terrible taxi experience that is far too common, maybe we should consider whether to kill Uber with new and better enforced rules or get rid of them so we can all have a better experience.

Sorry, I have not used Uber, so I can't compare. I use taxis when traveling on business. It's not my preference, but it works. The only really irritating episode I had was in China, I got in and sat down and the seat was wet. It smelled fine, but it's not nice arriving at work with wet pants. I've had worse experiences on public transit.

I would presume that in several years the Uber cars will be getting older unless Uber pays so well that the drivers can keep buying new cars.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Life Behind the Wheel

Please explain how someone voluntarily using their own vehicle to earn money is equivalent to "privatize the profit/socialize the risk"

Step 1: Uber misclassifies employees. It makes them use a specific proprietary technology. It controls the rates they charge. It prevents them from working with/for competitors. But it calls them "independent" contractors. Which they clearly are not. Therefore, all liability for unemployment, payroll taxes, workman's compensation, collision, liability, and all other manner of risk falls to the drivers instead of the multi-billion dollar, multinational parent corporation.
Risk = socialized onto employees and the taxpayers via welfare rolls in lieu of Uber paying workman's comp and unemployment insurance etc.

Step 2: Uber deliberately forces their employees, err, "independent" contractors to follow their guidelines to the letter, but they do not mandate that employees carry commercial auto insurance, thereby facilitating a scheme where nearly all of their drivers are operating in violation of their insurance policies - a private agreement and contract which is being violated.
Risk = socialized onto insurance companies and their backers and individuals who get hit by Uber drivers and cannot collect from insurance companies who will not pay out because of the policy violation and all other individuals in the region who buy car insurance against uninsured motorists whose rates go up.

Step 3: Cars are not provided by Uber, even though it mandates car quality and driver exclusivity. Rates are set without any thought towards capital asset depreciation, unlike a regular taxi company. Uber uses up the capital assets owned by its employees and provides no compensation for this. Capital depreciation losses = socialized onto employees and their families (since many drivers are young, I assume lots of mommies and daddies are actually covering this cost).

This is a significant departure from standard commerce practices. Tens of thousands of private insurance contracts are violated in the process. That's not even to mention all of the laws that are violated in the process as well. The business model is specifically designed to shift risk and costs off of the parent company and onto everybody else. The only problem? The courts will catch up to this in one state and one country after the other and say so.

[don]

Re: Life Behind the Wheel

The Uber Miracle unveiled.

Well done dcarrigg

[chene]

Re: Life Behind the Wheel

Step 1: Uber misclassifies employees. It makes them use a specific proprietary technology. It controls the rates they charge. It prevents them from working with/for competitors. But it calls them "independent" contractors. Which they clearly are not. Therefore, all liability for unemployment, payroll taxes, workman's compensation, collision, liability, and all other manner of risk falls to the drivers instead of the multi-billion dollar, multinational parent corporation.
Risk = socialized onto employees and the taxpayers via welfare rolls in lieu of Uber paying workman's comp and unemployment insurance etc.

Step 2: Uber deliberately forces their employees, err, "independent" contractors to follow their guidelines to the letter, but they do not mandate that employees carry commercial auto insurance, thereby facilitating a scheme where nearly all of their drivers are operating in violation of their insurance policies - a private agreement and contract which is being violated.
Risk = socialized onto insurance companies and their backers and individuals who get hit by Uber drivers and cannot collect from insurance companies who will not pay out because of the policy violation and all other individuals in the region who buy car insurance against uninsured motorists whose rates go up.

Step 3: Cars are not provided by Uber, even though it mandates car quality and driver exclusivity. Rates are set without any thought towards capital asset depreciation, unlike a regular taxi company. Uber uses up the capital assets owned by its employees and provides no compensation for this. Capital depreciation losses = socialized onto employees and their families (since many drivers are young, I assume lots of mommies and daddies are actually covering this cost).

Thanks dcarrigg
very well analyzed.

This is a significant departure from standard commerce practices. Tens of thousands of private insurance contracts are violated in the process. That's not even to mention all of the laws that are violated in the process as well. The business model is specifically designed to shift risk and costs off of the parent company and onto everybody else. The only problem? The courts will catch up to this in one state and one country after the other and say so.

It is intersting that you relies on justice to stop the process, not union, democratic debate, economic sustanability etc... The political and social strengths in place allow such perverse business model to exist in the first place. The decade long structural unemployment have put employee in such a position of extrem weakness that they can't even be called employee anymore...

There is a risk that justice will just put more burden on "free willing not employees"... The problem is at social level and my guess is that it will be solved at this level, or not solved at all. Laws can be changed. After all... "you don't want to stop coureageous people that want to work more to earn more"...

[don]

Re: Life Behind the Wheel

Last October, SF Mayor Ed Lee signed legislation legalizing the use of Airbnb. Written by former Supervisor David Chiu, the law allows permanent residents to offer short-term rentals, establishes a city registry for hosts, limits the rental of entire homes to 90 days per year, requires listings to carry $500,000 in liability insurance — and mandates the collection of the hotel tax. But, among a number of complaints from housing advocates, the law didn’t require the company to pay all the hotel taxes it should have been forking over before the agreement.

“I think they should pay their taxes,” said Dale Carlson, a public relations professional who is helping to craft a ballot measure for November that would further regulate Airbnb and similar companies: “$25 million — maybe more — is a lot of money.”

He said the powerful DCCC taking up the issue is “another indication that people are very unhappy with the way this company behaves.”

Carlson is working with housing activist Calvin Welch and former Planning Commissioner Doug Engmann to write the ballot measure and said it’ll be ready to hit the streets for voter signatures in April. In addition to requiring the back taxes be collected, Carlson said the ballot measure will probably set a stricter limit on how many days each year a place can be rented (probably limiting it to 30 days) and create a stronger mechanism for enforcing the law.

Christine Falvey, spokeswoman for Lee, said the mayor hasn’t seen the DCCC resolution but has pressed Airbnb to pay its back taxes. “He knows there is a liability, and he urges them to pay it,” she said.

Nick Papas, a spokesman for Airbnb, said in a written statement, “We are collecting and remitting taxes in San Francisco on behalf of our hosts, we are already engaged in a formal process with the treasurer’s office regarding back taxes and we are eager to discuss a resolution. We look forward to resolving this matter in the spirit of this balanced new law.”

— Heather Knight
San Francisco Chronicle

[dcarrigg]

Re: Life Behind the Wheel

Thanks dcarrigg
very well analyzed.



It is intersting that you relies on justice to stop the process, not union, democratic debate, economic sustanability etc... The political and social strengths in place allow such perverse business model to exist in the first place. The decade long structural unemployment have put employee in such a position of extrem weakness that they can't even be called employee anymore...

There is a risk that justice will just put more burden on "free willing not employees"... The problem is at social level and my guess is that it will be solved at this level, or not solved at all. Laws can be changed. After all... "you don't want to stop coureageous people that want to work more to earn more"...

I say the courts will step up to the issue only because I'm pretty convinced they're breaking existing law and actively encouraging private contract violations, causing real civil damages to insurance companies and states, who undoubtably will pile lawyers on top of them.

Laws most certainly can be changed. But I think you'll find that if they only are forced to start obeying existing laws, their profitability will suffer tremendously. That's even assuming they remain unregulated carriers, and do not end up being found to fall under the jurisdiction of public utilities regulators.

But considering their policy of surge pricing during emergencies, and the controversy that extra little bit of greed generates, I'd doubt they'll remain unregulated by those quasi-judicial commissions in states for long. They're already feeling some rudimentary pressure. All 50 states have laws against price-gouging during emergencies. If you think that AGs aren't looking at this in the offices of their civil divisions, I've got a bridge to sell you. These things just take years.

If they were smart, they'd go public in the next year or so before the whole business model blows up on them, cash in, and leave the "muppets" holding the bag.

[lektrode]

Re: Life Behind the Wheel

The Uber Miracle unveiled.

Well done dcarrigg

+1

[chene]

Re: Life Behind the Wheel

I say the courts will step up to the issue only because I'm pretty convinced they're breaking existing law and actively encouraging private contract violations, causing real civil damages to insurance companies and states, who undoubtably will pile lawyers on top of them.

Laws most certainly can be changed. But I think you'll find that if they only are forced to start obeying existing laws, their profitability will suffer tremendously. That's even assuming they remain unregulated carriers, and do not end up being found to fall under the jurisdiction of public utilities regulators.

But considering their policy of surge pricing during emergencies, and the controversy that extra little bit of greed generates, I'd doubt they'll remain unregulated by those quasi-judicial commissions in states for long. They're already feeling some rudimentary pressure. All 50 states have laws against price-gouging during emergencies. If you think that AGs aren't looking at this in the offices of their civil divisions, I've got a bridge to sell you. These things just take years.

If they were smart, they'd go public in the next year or so before the whole business model blows up on them, cash in, and leave the "muppets" holding the bag.

Nobody has a crystal ball. But yes, we can assume that they will get regulated. You seems to be sure that it will be a severe hit for their business.
The point is whether that will change the dynamic of the business model on the margin or not. It can as well provides a free attractive marketing campaign to yet reluctant customers : “Now it is fully legal and safe !”
There was a time where it was unthinkable to run a company without a lot of committed employee being part of the company… well many company run very well with many part-time students now… My point is that it is a major trend but I hope I am wrong…

[don]

My point is that it is a major trend but I hope I am wrong…

au contraire . . .

PERSONAL TECH

Uber’s Business Model Could Change Your Work

JAN. 28, 2015


As Uber has grown to become one of the world’s most valuable start-ups, its ambitions often seem limitless.

But of all the ways that Uber could change the world, the most far-reaching may be found closest at hand: your office. Uber, and more broadly the app-driven labor market it represents, is at the center of what could be a sea change in work, and in how people think about their jobs. You may not be contemplating becoming an Uber driver any time soon, but the Uberization of work may soon be coming to your chosen profession.

Just as Uber is doing for taxis, new technologies have the potential to chop up a broad array of traditional jobs into discrete tasks that can be assigned to people just when they’re needed, with wages set by a dynamic measurement of supply and demand, and every worker’s performance constantly tracked, reviewed and subject to the sometimes harsh light of customer satisfaction. Uber and its ride-sharing competitors, including Lyft and Sidecar, are the boldest examples of this breed, which many in the tech industry see as a new kind of start-up — one whose primary mission is to efficiently allocate human beings and their possessions, rather than information.

Various companies are now trying to emulate Uber’s business model in other fields, from daily chores like grocery shopping and laundry to more upmarket products like legal services and even medicine.

“I do think we are defining a new category of work that isn’t full-time employment but is not running your own business either,” said Arun Sundararajan, a professor at New York University’s business school who has studied the rise of the so-called on-demand economy, and who is mainly optimistic about its prospects.

Uberization will have its benefits: Technology could make your work life more flexible, allowing you to fit your job, or perhaps multiple jobs, around your schedule, rather than vice versa. Even during a time of renewed job growth, Americans’ wages are stubbornly stagnant, and the on-demand economy may provide novel streams of income.

“We may end up with a future in which a fraction of the work force would do a portfolio of things to generate an income — you could be an Uber driver, an Instacart shopper, an Airbnb host and a Taskrabbit,” Dr. Sundararajan said.

But the rise of such work could also make your income less predictable and your long-term employment less secure. And it may relegate the idea of establishing a lifelong career to a distant memory.

“I think it’s nonsense, utter nonsense,” said Robert B. Reich, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley who was the secretary of labor during the Clinton administration. “This on-demand economy means a work life that is unpredictable, doesn’t pay very well and is terribly insecure.” After interviewing many workers in the on-demand world, Dr. Reich said he has concluded that “most would much rather have good, well-paying, regular jobs.”

It is true that many of these start-ups are creating new opportunities for employment, which is a novel trend in tech, especially during an era in which we’re all fretting about robots stealing our jobs. Proponents of on-demand work point out that many of the tech giants that sprang up over the last decade minted billions in profits without hiring very many people; Facebook, for instance, serves more than a billion users, but employs only a few thousand highly skilled workers, most of them in California.

To make the case that it is creating lots of new jobs, Uber recently provided some of its data on ridership to Alan B. Krueger, an economist at Princeton and a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. Unsurprisingly, Dr. Krueger’s report — which he said he was allowed to produce without interference from Uber — paints Uber as a force for good in the labor market.

Dr. Krueger found that at the end of 2014, Uber had 160,000 drivers regularly working for it in the United States. About 40,000 new drivers signed up in December alone, and the number of sign-ups was doubling every six months.

The report found that on average, Uber’s drivers worked fewer hours and earned more per hour than traditional taxi drivers, even when you account for their expenses. That conclusion, though, has raised fierce debate among economists, because it’s not clear how much Uber drivers really are paying in expenses. Drivers on the service use their own cars and pay for their gas; taxi drivers generally do not.

The key perk of an Uber job is flexibility. In most of Uber’s largest markets, a majority of its drivers work from one to 15 hours a week, while many traditional taxi drivers work full time. A survey of Uber drivers contained in the report found that most were already employed full or part time when they found Uber, and that earning an additional income on the side was a primary benefit of driving for Uber.

Dr. Krueger pointed out that Uber’s growth was disconnected to improvements in the broader labor market. “As the economy got stronger, Uber’s rate of growth increased,” he said. “So far, it’s not showing signs of limitations in terms of attracting enough drivers.”

One criticism of Uber-like jobs is that because drivers aren’t technically employees but are instead independent contractors of Uber, they don’t enjoy the security and benefits of traditional jobs. The complication, here, though, is that most taxi drivers are also independent contractors, so the arrangement isn’t particularly novel in the ride business. And as on-demand jobs become more prevalent, guildlike professional groups are forming to provide benefits and support for workers.

The larger worry about on-demand jobs is not about benefits, but about a lack of agency — a future in which computers, rather than humans, determine what you do, when and for how much. The rise of Uber-like jobs is the logical culmination of an economic and tech system that holds efficiency as its paramount virtue.

“These services are successful because they are tapping into people’s available time more efficiently,” Dr. Sundararajan said. “You could say that people are monetizing their own downtime.”

Think about that for a second; isn’t “monetizing downtime” a hellish vision of the future of work?

“I’m glad if people like working for Uber, but those subjective feelings have got to be understood in the context of there being very few alternatives,” Dr. Reich said. “Can you imagine if this turns into a Mechanical Turk economy, where everyone is doing piecework at all odd hours, and no one knows when the next job will come, and how much it will pay? What kind of private lives can we possibly have, what kind of relationships, what kind of families?”

The on-demand economy may be better than the alternative of software automating all our work. But that isn’t necessarily much of a cause for celebration.

[flintlock]

Re: Life Behind the Wheel

Step 1: Uber misclassifies employees. It makes them use a specific proprietary technology. It controls the rates they charge. It prevents them from working with/for competitors. But it calls them "independent" contractors. Which they clearly are not. Therefore, all liability for unemployment, payroll taxes, workman's compensation, collision, liability, and all other manner of risk falls to the drivers instead of the multi-billion dollar, multinational parent corporation.
Risk = socialized onto employees and the taxpayers via welfare rolls in lieu of Uber paying workman's comp and unemployment insurance etc.

Step 2: Uber deliberately forces their employees, err, "independent" contractors to follow their guidelines to the letter, but they do not mandate that employees carry commercial auto insurance, thereby facilitating a scheme where nearly all of their drivers are operating in violation of their insurance policies - a private agreement and contract which is being violated.
Risk = socialized onto insurance companies and their backers and individuals who get hit by Uber drivers and cannot collect from insurance companies who will not pay out because of the policy violation and all other individuals in the region who buy car insurance against uninsured motorists whose rates go up.

Step 3: Cars are not provided by Uber, even though it mandates car quality and driver exclusivity. Rates are set without any thought towards capital asset depreciation, unlike a regular taxi company. Uber uses up the capital assets owned by its employees and provides no compensation for this. Capital depreciation losses = socialized onto employees and their families (since many drivers are young, I assume lots of mommies and daddies are actually covering this cost).

This is a significant departure from standard commerce practices. Tens of thousands of private insurance contracts are violated in the process. That's not even to mention all of the laws that are violated in the process as well. The business model is specifically designed to shift risk and costs off of the parent company and onto everybody else. The only problem? The courts will catch up to this in one state and one country after the other and say so.

Good explanation thanks. There are so many other industries that have learned to play the same game.

[DSpencer]

Re: Life Behind the Wheel

Step 1: Uber misclassifies employees. It makes them use a specific proprietary technology. It controls the rates they charge. It prevents them from working with/for competitors. But it calls them "independent" contractors. Which they clearly are not. Therefore, all liability for unemployment, payroll taxes, workman's compensation, collision, liability, and all other manner of risk falls to the drivers instead of the multi-billion dollar, multinational parent corporation.
Risk = socialized onto employees and the taxpayers via welfare rolls in lieu of Uber paying workman's comp and unemployment insurance etc.

Step 2: Uber deliberately forces their employees, err, "independent" contractors to follow their guidelines to the letter, but they do not mandate that employees carry commercial auto insurance, thereby facilitating a scheme where nearly all of their drivers are operating in violation of their insurance policies - a private agreement and contract which is being violated.
Risk = socialized onto insurance companies and their backers and individuals who get hit by Uber drivers and cannot collect from insurance companies who will not pay out because of the policy violation and all other individuals in the region who buy car insurance against uninsured motorists whose rates go up.

Step 3: Cars are not provided by Uber, even though it mandates car quality and driver exclusivity. Rates are set without any thought towards capital asset depreciation, unlike a regular taxi company. Uber uses up the capital assets owned by its employees and provides no compensation for this. Capital depreciation losses = socialized onto employees and their families (since many drivers are young, I assume lots of mommies and daddies are actually covering this cost).

This is a significant departure from standard commerce practices. Tens of thousands of private insurance contracts are violated in the process. That's not even to mention all of the laws that are violated in the process as well. The business model is specifically designed to shift risk and costs off of the parent company and onto everybody else. The only problem? The courts will catch up to this in one state and one country after the other and say so.

Re step 1: It's hard for me to find hard data but this article suggests that most taxi drivers are also independent contractors and not employees. Do you have any evidence that would show that most cab drivers are benefit-receiving employees?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/201...DjO/story.html

I also don't really understand the meaning of "socialized" onto employees. My complaint with the TBTF of the world isn't that the employees of the companies have to eat the losses, it's that the general public does. If an Uber driver is willing to work as an independent contractor then so be it.

Re Step 2: Uber claims it does provide commercial insurance during rides. Is this a lie?

https://support.uber.com/hc/en-us/ar...s-an-accident-

http://blog.uber.com/ridesharinginsurance

Re Step 3: Again, not sure how voluntary arrangements that only directly affect the parties involve constitute "socializing the losses". Also not sure what you mean by not compensating them, they are obviously compensated by Uber. If mommy and daddy don't think that little Johnny makes enough money to compensate for the wear and tear on their car then mommy and daddy should act like parents and provide guidelines for the use of their property.