# Ideas that can help Uber with the current issues in 2016 surging/customer&driver dissatisfaction.



## Wallyma (Jan 9, 2016)

I'd like to start a post with helpful ideas from other forum members. Concepts that Uber might consider to increase profits. Hopefully Uber browses these forums and might take in consideration some ideas we present here.

I feel that with the current pricing/procedures started in 2016 in Raleigh-Durham, issues have arised. Is this happening in other cities? I don't know.

A sample: Students at Duke and UNC refusing to ask for rides because they can't afford ridiculous surges in the middle of the day. I sit in a parking lot with all these surges, but get little to no rides. Everyone getting bothered by this because it is now happening on a daily basis all through out the day.

With my little knowledge of the machinations of the Uber system, it looks like:


Many drivers have quit. The combination of: Uber selecting new drivers retroactively after they started with 20% commission , and now it's 25% / Reducing rates significantly. (my base fare in Jan was $3.75 now 2.25, Personally, I made my budget work when I started at the end of Dec, but Uber became unsustainable for me with these cuts, thank goodness for Lyft.) 
Surges happening unexpectedly everywhere at all times (example: surges at 5 am during the week )
Passengers & Drivers discussing how frustrated they are. 
Passengers venting their frustrations on drivers.
Uber offering select $20-ish per hour opt ins for guarantees. so few people opting in, Uber blanket text drivers with $28 per hour.
Uber Drivers utilizing Lyft and exalting the benefits of Lyft to passengers. (better pay for drivers, alternative to surges)
Overall decrease in Passengers using ridesharing and modifying their behavior to go out less/walk/use other options.
A snowball effect and it is getting worse.

Anyone have ideas for viable solutions?

I cannot think of many ways to address these growing issues...

First of all, I need that 20% back. I need consistency. I'd rather have that 5% back than all these guarentees that i can't count on a regular basis. I think this would help keep the driver base.

Bring back the rates. I really don't recall customers complaining about rates before the warm-up. But now I think Uber is stuck. Raising the rates won't bring back the drivers, maybe some. They went and got other jobs. It will be a slow bring-back . Lack of advertising and bad word of mouth from current drivers will hinder. So, that leaves crazy surges for quite some time with increased rates for passengers. They will not be pleased. But without other major ideas, what else is there. That is why I am posting. Love to hear peoples thoughts and discussions. I do have other ideas, (major changes to app/profiling issues, etc...) but I don't want to waste time if no one bothers opening this thread.

I think the longer Uber waits, it will not get better.

This is a common theme that I have heard: Uber's goal is to make driving with them cheaper than owning a car.

The problem is,Uber drivers own cars.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

Wallyma said:


> I'd like to start a post with helpful ideas from other forum members. Hopefully Uber browses these forums and might take in consideration some ideas we present here.
> I don't know.
> 
> I started at the end of Dec.


I exploited only 4 sentences in your post. Uber takes in these considerations with a very very big smile. Uber counts on people just like you to become drivers. One of the best sentences ever in the history of this forum.

I DON'T KNOW.

Uber loves people just like you. No knowledge of the "fare for hire" business whatsoever. No experience in the "fare for hire" business whatsoever. And will come running to Uber because they've seen all the "great opportunities" available at Uber. And all of this without doing 60 seconds of research.
Don't feel bad, there's almost 500,000 others that did the same exact thing.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Wallyma said:


> I'd like to start a post with helpful ideas from other forum members. Concepts that Uber might consider to increase profits. Hopefully Uber browses these forums and might take in consideration some ideas we present here.
> 
> I feel that with the current pricing/procedures started in 2016 in Raleigh-Durham, issues have arised. Is this happening in other cities? I don't know.
> 
> ...


POST # 1/Wallyma: There is no point
in "trying to be
helpful" to a Sociopathic Misanthrope
that wants to toss O N E ..M I L L I O N
DRIVERS out of a Lousy Below-Minimum
Wage Job in favor of The Fantasy of Robots
that don't COMPLAIN like the current
Workers a/k/a "commodity". See this
Link:

Http://uberpeople.net/posts/187189

If that "Complaints" Thread is a Little
More than you can Stomach in One
Reading, let me direct you to a Re-
Tweeted Comment to a Recent Yahoo.
com Article. It will set you straight on
this #Evil [F]Uber that you are...now...
so eager to help:

Http://uberpeople.net/posts/980030

Yes, that number means that there are
Nearly a M I L L I O N...R E A S O N S
to read...R E A D...much, much, MUCH 
more before Threadstarting Next.

Mentoring Bison: Here since 07 DEC 2014.


----------



## NuberUber (Dec 28, 2015)

One thing I have learned since I started doing the Uber thang is that everything Uber does is driven by numbers and data.

Bottom line is maximize profits. This means getting drivers to drive for as little as possible and riders to ride at the highest rates they will be willing to. Uber is constantly running numbers on this to find the sweet spot. They constantly adjust and consistency is not ever in the mix. The main motivator is to grow and become as large as possible. There is a balance they are looking to find and many equations to evaluate in order to achieve this.


----------



## Undermensch (Oct 21, 2015)

NuberUber said:


> One thing I have learned since I started doing the Uber thang is that everything Uber does is driven by numbers and data.
> 
> Bottom line is maximize profits. This means getting drivers to drive for as little as possible and riders to ride at the highest rates they will be willing to. Uber is constantly running numbers on this to find the sweet spot. They constantly adjust and consistency is not ever in the mix. The main motivator is to grow and become as large as possible. There is a balance they are looking to find and many equations to evaluate in order to achieve this.


It's driven by a particular interpretation of numbers, sure. Doesn't mean it's right.

Wal-Mart was driven by numbers too. None of those numbers told them to not be evil, so they did. End result is they made a lot of money but today they are one of the most hated companies and people are stopping shopping there in favor of Costco and Target because they aren't evil.


----------



## Greguzzi (Jan 9, 2016)

NuberUber said:


> One thing I have learned since I started doing the Uber thang is that everything Uber does is driven by numbers and data.
> 
> Bottom line is maximize profits. This means getting drivers to drive for as little as possible and riders to ride at the highest rates they will be willing to. Uber is constantly running numbers on this to find the sweet spot. They constantly adjust and consistency is not ever in the mix. The main motivator is to grow and become as large as possible. There is a balance they are looking to find and many equations to evaluate in order to achieve this.


This is exactly right. Uber regards each market as its own science experiment in which they can gather more data toward perfecting their business model-a model whose goal is to get its drivers to drive for the lowest possible cost to Uber and its riders to pay the most possible to Uber, consistent with the need for company growth.

What this means for drivers is that you should not plan on Uber as a dependable and profitable gig. Uber thinks of you as a washer of dishes or a flipper of burgers and wants to pay you minimum wage or less, while sticking you with all the direct costs of driving around the company's entitled passengers. Know your expenses and get out as soon as driving is no longer profitable. For most markets, that tipping point was reached months ago, with the last round of price cuts.


----------



## 5 Star Guy (Nov 7, 2015)

This thread brings up an interesting point, if more people avoid them would they either continue with the low rates or would they make the rates even lower?  It is only numbers, almost instant number crunching.


----------



## NuberUber (Dec 28, 2015)

Undermensch said:


> It's driven by a particular interpretation of numbers, sure. Doesn't mean it's right.
> 
> Wal-Mart was driven by numbers too. None of those numbers told them to not be evil, so they did. End result is they made a lot of money but today they are one of the most hated companies and people are stopping shopping there in favor of Costco and Target because they aren't evil.


And yet Walmart continues on! Yes they have had some bad PR and have even made it a point to publicize the 1 million Walmart workers that got a raise this past February, but the company is far from closing its doors. We live in a capitalistic society, so the costs of the market balance are tolerated to a point.



5 Star Guy said:


> This thread brings up an interesting point, if more people avoid them would they either continue with the low rates or would they make the rates even lower?  It is only numbers, almost instant number crunching.


The market would dictate that if they continue to lower rates there would be less drivers. Increasing rates would obviously attract more drivers to sign up. I do think Uber has been lowering the rates to try to find that spot, which is different in different markets. It has likely overshot that spot in some markets, where rates will eventually go up. It is all numbers and market driven.


----------



## Undermensch (Oct 21, 2015)

NuberUber said:


> And yet Walmart continues on! Yes they have had some bad PR and have even made it a point to publicize the 1 million Walmart workers that got a raise this past February, but the company is far from closing its doors. We live in a capitalistic society, so the costs of the market balance are tolerated to a point.


Yup. Fully agreed. Nobody loves Wal-Mart though and that doesn't bode well for them in the next 5-20 years unless they change their approach.

I wouldn't be shocked if Wal-Mart gets abandoned just like K-mart did (for different reasons).

I would be much less shocked to see Uber get abandoned first though.


----------



## 5 Star Guy (Nov 7, 2015)

Undermensch said:


> Yup. Fully agreed. Nobody loves Wal-Mart though and that doesn't bode well for them in the next 5-20 years unless they change their approach.
> 
> I wouldn't be shocked if Wal-Mart gets abandoned just like K-mart did (for different reasons).
> 
> I would be much less shocked to see Uber get abandoned first though.


Google Walsucks, they are closing hundreds of smaller stores and many sams.


----------



## Tequila Jake (Jan 28, 2016)

Here in Phoenix, I estimate the rates have to double to be a sustainable full-time job at a reasonable number of hours. From what I've heard from riders, they'd rather pay a higher set fare than play the surge game. The knowledgeable riders use both Lyft and Uber and compare whether Lyft PrimeTime is better than Uber surge.

Uber also needs to figure out how to make its surge algorithm more reflective of how many people with the app on actually want rides. It is not at all unusual to be sitting in an area that's surging at 2.x and get a ping miles away because there isn't anybody willing to ride at the surge rate. People take an Uber ride to a bar and sit for hours with the app still in the background. Uber looks at that as "demand" even though there is no intention for a ride.

Uber does not care about either the drivers or riders -- only their revenue. The best thing to do is for Uber to adopt and believe in a culture that's positive for themselves, their partners, and their riders. Their "me me me" attitude is not a formula for long-term success.

Of course, part of being positive for the driver is adding a tip option and offering driver filters such as destination or ping distance.

_(edited for grammar error_)


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Well, the solution is quite simple.

Quit driving for slave rates.

That is the only message Uber, or any huge corporation will understand.

But, in defense of the little guy, who doesn't have lobbyists representing him in congress:

The moral solution is to pass regulation making it illegal for rideshare corporations to do this and set minimum rates
( for example, assuming paid mile average is 50% of total miles driven during a typical shift,
the rate should be at least 4x the IRS mileage deduction, or something like that ) .

If you want that to happen, then vote democratic in 2016.

Or, if you prefer a world where the rich and powerful can exploit the little guy with impunity, vote republican ( they believe regulation is evil ).

What we should do is form an association, pay dues, and hire a lobbyist. There are enough drivers in the world to do this.

But, our problems are not what is being talked about in the media, apparently political leaders perceive that they have bigger fish to fry.

It's really up to us. There's old saying, and it's true: the wheel that squeaks loudest gets the grease.


----------



## Greguzzi (Jan 9, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> Well, the solution is quite simple.
> 
> Quit driving for slave rates.
> 
> ...


LOL. Anyone who thinks the Democrats look out for the little guy when the Republicans only look out for evil corporations is a simpleton who lives in a cartoon fantasy of real life.


----------



## Wallyma (Jan 9, 2016)

Let me reframe this:
If you had total control of driver/passenger apps and ecosystem, how would you increase profits.

I know a lot of people are frustrated, it's evident by the shut-downs and shaking of the fist comments in this post.

I am sure everyone here who has posted, especially the snarky ones, have great ideas.
Pretend this is a thought exercise.

Everyone reedit your posts. I am sure you have your own interesting ideas. I double dare ya.


----------



## Wallyma (Jan 9, 2016)

Tequila Jake said:


> Of course, part of being positive for the driver is adding a tip option and offering driver filters such as destination or ping distance.


How would you avoid 'profiling'?


----------



## naplestom75 (May 3, 2015)

NuberUber said:


> One thing I have learned since I started doing the Uber thang is that everything Uber does is driven by numbers and data.
> 
> Bottom line is maximize profits. This means getting drivers to drive for as little as possible and riders to ride at the highest rates they will be willing to. Uber is constantly running numbers on this to find the sweet spot. They constantly adjust and consistency is not ever in the mix. The main motivator is to grow and become as large as possible. There is a balance they are looking to find and many equations to evaluate in order to achieve this.


Maximize revenue. the fact that they are maximizing profits is VERY arguable.


----------



## bestpals (Aug 22, 2015)

Wallyma said:


> Let me reframe this:
> If you had total control of driver/passenger apps and ecosystem, how would you increase profits.
> 
> I know a lot of people are frustrated, it's evident by the shut-downs and shaking of the fist comments in this post.
> ...


Double daring!! So juvenile. Uber does not care one bit about what the drivers think. They only care about themselves. Get out now. Stop driving for this greedy company. This is the only way to reach them. If they had ZERO drivers then they would be forced to raise rates or go bankrupt. Until this happens NOTHING is going to change. It's only going to get worse.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Greguzzi said:


> LOL. Anyone who thinks the Democrats look out for the little guy when the Republicans only look out for evil corporations is a simpleton who lives in a cartoon fantasy of real life.


Well, let me tell you a little story of my cartoon fantasy.

In 2008, I voted for Obama.

A couple of years later, I needed an operation which costs thousands which I could not afford, and health care at the time for a man
of my age was $700 per month, which is practically impossible to afford on my income ( about $25K per year, at the time )

Then Obama got the Affordable Care Act passed, which the Republicans tried to repeal over 50 times, whereupon
I was able to get that operation. My costs? $300.

Voting does consequences, and I'm living proof of it. Despite all their flaws, I'm voting Democrat. If I had voted Republican
and they won the election, I MIGHT BE DEAD TODAY.

If you want to argue that you don't want your taxes to pay for my operation, then my reply
is I don't want my taxes to pay for wars in Iraq, Afganistan, etc., but taxes are taxes, and the leaders
do stuff with the money and they can't please everyone. That's the nature of taxes, but the point is that argument isn't a valid one.
it is not a valid reasons to not to put forth a public policy which is moral, just, and for the greater good. Who decides
what is the greater good? The voters do, and in the last two election cycles, Obama won.

No, you don't get to keep all your money, nor do you have any inherent right to do so. If you think you do,
then move to Somalia ( or somewhere ) where there is total anarchy, and try selling swimming pools in a country that has no taxes, no goverment, no income and good luck.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4017147.stm


----------



## Greguzzi (Jan 9, 2016)

Look, I am glad it worked for you. You seem like a nice fellow, but if you could not afford $700/month for health insurance, it is unlikely that you actually pay any income taxes, or your priorities are vastly askew. I pay way more than $700/month for my "affordable" Obungholecare policy and the deductibles that apply effectively mean that it will be used only in the case of catastrophic circumstances. It is in every way inferior to the plan Ol' Jugears promised so many times I would be able to keep. He lied straight to my face, and I am not at all happy about that. I voted Obama in '08, too, and feel stabbed in the back by that lying sack of shit.

And, yes, our health-insurance system was in need of some tweaking prior to Obungholecare, but today it is in every way worse. But it is only worse for those who actually pay full cost for it. Even those who got put on subsidized plans are finding that the deductibles are so high that they can really afford to use their plan only in case of catastrophe, anyway. On the other hand, people who qualified for plans that are essentially Medicaid get a very sweet deal, indeed, as typically there are no copays for anything, let alone any deductibles. It's all free, swipe yo' EBT!

Truth is, there are only two types of people who are entirely happy with Obungholecare: 1) those who get it "free" and 2) the insurance corporations that got a windfall because the government forced all its citizens to buy the product of these _corporations_. Which party is in the pocket of big business again?

And this is why the US is over $19 TRILLION in debt.

Both sides borrow and spend . . . world without end, amen.

Worry not, though; our grandchildren will gladly pay the bills we ignored and allowed to pile up. Actually, if they have any moxie, they will be so pissed at how we spent the greatest country in the history of the world into bankruptcy that they will round us all up and put a bullet in each of our heads or gas us en masse. I'm afraid that truly is the "final solution" to the problems with health insurance and Social Security that we are leaving them with.

And stop with the Somalia shit. It's so hackneyed that only the brain-dead use it nowadays. Saying that one thinks government is already large enough is not the same thing as saying one wants no government at all. You should be smart enough to see this.


----------



## Tequila Jake (Jan 28, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> Well, let me tell you a little story of my cartoon fantasy.
> 
> In 2008, I voted for Obama.
> 
> ...


The Affordable Care Act was passed in March 2010 but did not go into effect until January 2014 so it was probably another program that helped you (or it was more than a couple of years after 2008).


----------



## Greguzzi (Jan 9, 2016)

Tequila Jake said:


> The Affordable Care Act was passed in March 2010 but did not go into effect until January 2014 so it was probably another program that helped you (or it was more than a couple of years after 2008).


Don't derail him; he's on a roll . . .


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Tequila Jake said:


> The Affordable Care Act was passed in March 2010 but did not go into effect until January 2014 so it was probably another program that helped you (or it was more than a couple of years after 2008).


Okay, pin me down, --- I had the operation in Dec of 2015. Happy ?


----------



## NuberUber (Dec 28, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> Okay, pin me down, --- I had the operation in Dec of 2015. Happy ?


So do you really think that the surgery that cost a few thousands that you ended up getting for only $700 was on sale because of obamacare?

Hate to tell you but the surgery was just as expensive but someone else got to eat the costs. Explains those who were lucky enough to have their premiums increase from Obamacare!


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

NuberUber said:


> So do you really think that the surgery that cost a few thousands that you ended up getting for only $700 was on sale because of obamacare?
> 
> Hate to tell you but the surgery was just as expensive but someone else got to eat the costs. Explains those who were lucky enough to have their premiums increase from Obamacare!


It is my view that only those who can afford higher premiums should pay them. If that is not the case, then it's a case for remedying Obamacare, not repealing it. Its not a perfect law, as few laws are, and can be improved, as can be many laws, as well.

Also, I explained my position in my post on the taxation issue, and your reply did not refute my position. My cost was $300, not $700. 
No one had to "directly eat" the cost of my care, taxation is a collective thing, so that argument is ALWAYS bogus. If you are an Uber driver, and your state has opted in on the exchanges, you will benefit on one of the silver plans under Obamacare, that is , "IF" you live in a state that opted in on the ACA. If you live in a state that opted out, most likely the result a republican governor screwing you --- and you screwed yourself if you voted for him/her. The federal exchanges, I hear, are not as robust as most state exchanges.


----------



## NuberUber (Dec 28, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> It is my view that only those who can afford higher premiums should pay them. If that is not the case, then it's a case for remedying Obamacare, not repealing it. Its not a perfect law, as few laws are, and can be improved, as can be many laws, as well.
> 
> Also, I explained my position in my post on the taxation issue, and your reply did not refute my position. My cost was $300, not $700.
> No one had to "directly eat" the cost of my care, taxation is a collective thing, so that argument is ALWAYS bogus. If you are an Uber driver, and your state has opted in on the exchanges, you will benefit on one of the silver plans under Obamacare, that is , "IF" you live in a state that opted in on the ACA. If you live in a state that opted out, most likely the result a republican governor screwing you --- and you screwed yourself if you voted for him/her. The federal exchanges, I hear, are not as robust as most state exchanges.


I think you missed my point. Your inexpensive surgery was only inexpensive for you. Do you think the surgeon took a largely reduced pay to perform your surgery? You think the anesthesia that was used was discounted? The surgery suite you occupied was only $50 for the few hours you needed it??

Healthcare expenses continue to rise and yet you were able to get a surgery that usually cost thousands for just a few hundred. You don't see the problem there? Where did the rest of the cost go?


----------



## 5 Star Guy (Nov 7, 2015)

In case you missed the memo, we're not supposed to include politics on here, unless it's about the lobbyists Travass pays or politics related to his sketchy company. Now do you think he's a democrat? Oh no he didn't.


----------



## Greguzzi (Jan 9, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> It is my view that only those who can afford higher premiums should pay them. If that is not the case, then it's a case for remedying Obamacare, not repealing it. Its not a perfect law, as few laws are, and can be improved, as can be many laws, as well.
> 
> Also, I explained my position in my post on the taxation issue, and your reply did not refute my position. My cost was $300, not $700.
> No one had to "directly eat" the cost of my care, taxation is a collective thing, so that argument is ALWAYS bogus. If you are an Uber driver, and your state has opted in on the exchanges, you will benefit on one of the silver plans under Obamacare, that is , "IF" you live in a state that opted in on the ACA. If you live in a state that opted out, most likely the result a republican governor screwing you --- and you screwed yourself if you voted for him/her. The federal exchanges, I hear, are not as robust as most state exchanges.


It's only a collective thing if everyone pays taxes. Today, fewer than 43 percent of American households pay any Federal income tax, and the VAST majority of the Federal income tax that is paid is paid by the top earners (top 1 percent pays 24 percent and top 10 percent pay 53 percent of Federal income taxes). Therefore, the argument that someone is eating your costs is not bogus.

And don't forget that the Federal government borrows about 30 percent of what it spends, so much of the ACA money is borrowed, so this is a bill your grandchildren will have to pay for you.

Finally, one-by-one, the state exchanges are going bust as the costs of Obungholecare spin out of control. The ACA was designed to fail, so they can "move-on" to the next step-single-payer. Republican governors were the ones smart enough to see this coming and to want no part of it.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Greguzzi said:


> It's only a collective thing if everyone pays taxes. Today, fewer than 43 percent of American households pay any Federal income tax, and the VAST majority of the Federal income tax that is paid is paid by the top earners (top 1 percent pays 24 percent and top 10 percent pay 53 percent of Federal income taxes). Therefore, the argument that someone is eating your costs is not bogus.
> 
> And don't forget that the Federal government borrows about 30 percent of what it spends, so much of the ACA money is borrowed, so this is a bill your grandchildren will have to pay for you.
> 
> Finally, one-by-one, the state exchanges are going bust as the costs of Obungholecare spin out of control. The ACA was designed to fail, so they can "move-on" to the next step-single-payer. Republican governors were the ones smart enough to see this coming and to want no part of it.


Please, there is no legitimate reason to use weasel words. I'm polite, please do the same, thanks.

Nonsense. Taxes are still a collective effort even if only half pay taxes. That's still quite a few million people.

The actual record doesn't show ACA is spinning out of control. It's a new thing and it is experience growth pains. So right wingers sites sit around and glom on to any negative fact they an hurl at it, and not see things in a more long term, visionary, positive light. They are do nothings, and have no solutions.

In fact, the ACA is reducing the rate of increase, overall:

http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2015/02/kff-chart.png

The rate of increase was much 72% under Bush, 26% under Obama.

Current fiscal issues aside, it's a management problem,
not a philosophy problem. The conservative philosophy is one of health care being a priviledge, and with that philosophy, more people will die than with a philosophy of health care as a right. So, take your pick, fiscal problems or death ?

And what is the conservative solution, anyway ? All they have so far is the status quo. I recall being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.
There were thousands of people that paid for 30 years, only to find out when they really needed it in later life, their insurer dropped them, they found out they had an excludable condition which they lied or didn't mention when they applied.

On 60 minutes, they interviewed a lady whose job it was in a big insurance company to find ways of denying claims. She was asked what was on the excludable conditions list, how big was that list? She said it was long, it went on and on and on. Insurance is supposed to cure us of the fear of not being able to afford catastrophic care. But, if we know that every insurer has a claims denying department ( as they all did ) how can insurance cure us of that fear? If it doesn't, it's a worthless crap shoot. That was the prior state of health care insurance prior to the ACA. And the republicans want to return us to the status quo? What is their solution? They do not have one.

If you have an insurance system , and you remove denying people for pre-existing conditions, it will be impossible to administer it if it is not mandated. If we don't have medicaid expansion, all that is left is mandated insurance, or the status quo. If you have another solution, better than waht is now, please enlighten us.

One of the big reasons they are having management problems is that there are many people still not on the exchanges.
It's not an concept problem, it's a problem because many people dont want it. Why not? Because republicans keep telling their flock it is bad, it's an Obama thing and whatever Obama wants, they do not want. What we had before was, overall, worse. You might have had doctor visits, and everything seemed fine. But, prior to the ACA you forget that you really wont know the true value of your health care insurance until you have a catastrophic condition. You think what you had was better before the ACA, but you really didn't, given this crap shoot state of care prior to the ACA. Sure, for some ( but not most ) it's more expensive. the reason is that it, ( given the removal of prior condition exclusion, and possible being denied coverage when you really need it ) it has MORE VALUE. The ACA does away with junk coverage, and only allows coverage that will, in fact, cover you when you really need it. In CA, the silver plan had a modest deductible, and cheap copays, yet everyone is shouting about the high deductibles on the bronze plan. LOOK DEEPER. If your state has an exchange, I'll bet there is a plan doable for you. If not, the problem is your republican governer and republicans bad mouthing the plan to such and extent it won't work as planned ( cuase it needed everyone to join ). but, heck, the republicans don't want Obama to succeed, and that' what is really happening.

For progressives, all of the flaws in the ACA will be solved with medicaid expansion for all.

Medicaid is more efficient than health care dollars spent with private insurers. There is plenty of data to support this.

So, enlighten us, what is your solution?


----------



## jonnyplastic (Feb 11, 2016)

*Raise the rates! Problem solved! The end!*


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Greguzzi said:


> (top 1 percent pays 24 percent and top 10 percent pay 53 percent of Federal income taxes). Therefore, the argument that someone is eating your costs is not bogus.
> 
> .


It seems unfair to the rich if you express it as you have expressed it, as their percentage paid of the total collected.

But, that's the wrong way to look at it.

The top 1 percent pay , _expressed as a percentage of their total income_, *much less* than the middle class.

The total might be more, but if it's smaller as a percentage of total income, and the USA has deficits for not enough taxes coming in,
then it is NOT ENOUGH. If they have most of the nation's wealth, and there is no other place to get the money to cure the deficit,
other than taking it from the poor, printing it, or borrowing it ( all bad ideas being done ) they are the ones with money. Where else are we going to get the dough to cure the deficits? I ask you, if a person makes 400,000,000 a year, do you think that person can live on 200,000,000? Well, even though the total the rich pay is a greater percantage of the total than middle class pay, expressed as a percentage of their income, it's a lot less. If a person, say, who makes $40K per year, pays $10k in taxes, thats' a lot more pain for that person than a person who makes 400 million and pays 15%. Sorry, I'm not feeling sorry for the rich. Not at all. Some honorable rich guys agree.

Deficits cause inflation, and since the rich can hedge, and the poor and middle class cannot, or not nearly as well, inflation is , in essence,
taxation without representation. If you have $10K in the bank, and next year it's purchasing power goes down 10%, you were taxed $1000 against your permission. That happened because right wing governments give tax breaks to the rich, which causes more deficits, which causes inflation, which IS TAKEN FROM YOUR POCKET via purchasing power erosion.


----------



## Greguzzi (Jan 9, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> It seems unfair to the rich if you express it as you have expressed it, as their percentage paid of the total collected.
> 
> But, that's the wrong way to look at it.
> 
> ...


You are just wrong. And deluded. And it's pathetic to see.

The rich pay a far higher percent of Federal income taxes than their share of the wealth. You have been hoodwinked by a biased and shitty fascialist press to believe otherwise, but they are lying to you. I won't bother with numbers because you won't read them, and even if you did, you'd stick to your myths.

You want government to be Santa Claus and give you everything you desire for free, because, gosh darnit, you deserve to be given everything for free. Never mind that nothing is more expensive than something the government gives you for "free"-largely because someone else is paying for it, and at many multiples in dollars of the value of what you will get.

It's time to grow up and take responsibility for your own fate. Own it. Control it. Don't settle for being a ward of the state.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Greguzzi said:


> You are just wrong. And deluded. And it's pathetic to see.
> 
> The rich pay a far higher percent of Federal income taxes than their share of the wealth. You have been hoodwinked by a biased and shitty fascialist press to believe otherwise, but they are lying to you. I won't bother with numbers because you won't read them, and even if you did, you'd stick to your myths.
> 
> ...


Tsk tsk...
Romney told the world his tax rate was 15%. A secretary pays 35%. Thats' a lot more pain you'll feel if you are a secretary,
and though the number is greater, it's a lot less if pain if you are rich as romney.

So, what we hve here, folks, is typical Red baiting, typical right wing speak. With right wingers, the left is one big commie cartoon,
comrads in arms, marching with hammers and sickles, yadda yadda. I could play the same game, you know, watching you righties
goose stepping to your fabian fascist leader, etc. But, I'm not so inclined. I got over cartoons when I was a kid.

Yeah, I know, the disadvantaged are all a bunch of mooches, taking your hard cash, you know, libs going after your wallet, your guns, and turning your kids gay. That's how right wing loonies think. I hear it everyday. Oops, was that a cartoon of your mental processes? So sorry.

It's kinda funny, when the tax system was far more progressive than it was today, I remember a day when one man could support his wife and a family of four, make a mortgage payment, car payment, etc. and unemployment was under 4% and the minimum wage, adjustng for inflation, was much higher than it was today. You know who the prez was? Eisenhour, a republican ( oops ). And, this was post New Deal, you know, FDR, that pinko commie y'all keep complaining 'bout?

Over the years since the 50s, owing to right wing efforts, progressivity has been chipped away at considerably and we find ourselves today, where an average person has to work a long longer, let alone support anyone, wives are working a lot more now, seems to me you are talking pure, unadulterated bullshit. Jeez, the last time a republican was president, the nation was driven into one mighty big ditch, it's amazing Obama has, despite the hundreds of filibusters ( unprecedented in history ) has done as well has he has.

No one is talking socialism ( the USSR variety ), communism, or totalitarism of any kind. No liberal is saying that, not I, not Hillary, and not Bernie. That libs are not for hard working people, and are not hard working people themselves, is one of the uber-lies perpertrated by the right. Libertarianism ( now the dominant force in conservatism) is, in essence, a license for the rich and powerful to exploit the less rich and powerful with impunity, and to the large degree our nation has moved in that direction ( compared to the 50s ) they have done precisely that.

See, it all depends on how one thinks. Methinks you think while high on kool aid.

I hate to break the news to ya, Hillary will be the next president. Not crazy about her, meself, but she's better than the right wing offerings, by a long shot.


----------



## Redtop (Oct 20, 2015)

At the risk of returning this thread to its original purpose....

I drive regularly in a small city (Reading, PA) where the base rate is $1.75/mi, and occasionally in a nearby (60 miles) larger city (Philadelpha) where the base rate is $1.10. In Reading, the only times that are reliably busy are Friday and Saturday from 11PM to 2:30AM, and Thursday nights aren't bad. When I drive in Philly on a Sunday, well, yesterday I had 10 rides in about 5 hours.

Like it or not, Uber is free enterprise at it's best. (I'm an economist by training, and we do generally believe that free competition leads to efficient outcomes). Uber as a company is free to tweak its business model to maximize profits, and drivers are free to drive or not drive as they see fit. For many drivers, the costs of entry/exit into the business are extremely small. Even if you buy a vehicle, your down payment is only a few thousand and if you exit driving for Uber and sell the car, you'll only lose a few thousand. By economic standards those are extremely small amounts.

Cities with low rates clearly have changed the paradigm of transportation. People who would have taken a bus, or walked, or gotten a friend to drive, take Uber. By comparison, in Reading almost all my customers are out-of-towners, people whose cars are temporarily unavailable, and of course the inebriated or soon-to-be inebriated. Also, taxicab rates in Reading are competitive with Uber.

There's nothing sinister about Uber experimenting in different markets. Whether we like it or not, Uber doesn't owe its "partners" or its customers anything. They are free to maximize profits for Uber.

I must say that it hadn't really occurred to me that they could fiddle with surge fares even when there's not really surge, as a way of seeing what the market will bear.

Remember too that Uber is likely positioning itself for the time 25-35 years from now when they can dispense with the worst part of their business model - the pesky Uber "partner." Most of you will be automated out of business by fully autonomous cars. (I'll be retired or dead by then.)

I realize I'm working at a subminimum wage job, but I choose to do it. I was a desk worker all my life and I'm not sure I'd be up to the physical demands of stocking shelves or being a cashier, and the thing I like most about being retired is having a fully flexible schedule.

I'm not postulating as a Democrat or Republican or socialist or anything in between. Just basic Microeconomics 101.


----------



## William1964 (Jul 28, 2015)

The only thing that can help Uber and all the issues and problems that's causing and all the good it may cause is to destroy the server.

This is a dangerous company that is putting everyone at risk if not with untrained drivers butt with other sections or Departments of the company.

It is just so unreasonable

Looking at how I handle my business and my willingness to stop driving if I'm having low blood sugar problems coughing up blood or that there is a risk that dizziness and vomiting coughing up blood is going to happen.

Uber is ******ed


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Redtop said:


> At the risk of returning this thread to its original purpose....
> 
> I drive regularly in a small city (Reading, PA) where the base rate is $1.75/mi, and occasionally in a nearby (60 miles) larger city (Philadelpha) where the base rate is $1.10. In Reading, the only times that are reliably busy are Friday and Saturday from 11PM to 2:30AM, and Thursday nights aren't bad. When I drive in Philly on a Sunday, well, yesterday I had 10 rides in about 5 hours.
> 
> ...


Uber is the result of libertarian thinking, and it goes like this: Whatever the rich can get away with, they will get away with it.

To a libertarian, that's life, deal with it.

To a liberal, it's criminality to allow it to exist ( just as murder is criminality, and criminality not to criminalize it ).

You say it's free market at its best, but, in my view, it's a free market at its worst, it's the very reason regulation is needed in a free market.

We don't allow murder, we prosecute, but it's okay to exploit those who might be an exploitable situation, where they need money so bad they will be the vehicle by which the rich will extract wealth from their labor and give every little in return because the individual would rather work for crumbs than not to work at all?

If it is okay, then answer this one for me, okay?

Why is there all this hate for Travis on this forum? Hmmmm?

I mean, whose side are you on? Travis's side? Or the driver's?

How many have you told about your truthful plight with UberX ( etc ), and the rider did not feel bad about it?

I had a rider ( I drive UberBlack ) and she asked me as an UberBlack driver, was I happy with my earnings?

I said they are acceptable, but because it's UberBlack, not UberX. That was why she hired UberBlack, not because she 
felt the need to ride in a more expensive car, she felt the need to do the right thing, she felt like if she hired an UberX, 
she was exploiting people. You know, if it walks like a duck.........(it's a frickin' duck ).

If more people were like her, ridershares would not exist.

And to all you right wingers out there, that's not communism, that's just thinking about what's fair and just.

WTFU.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

jonnyplastic said:


> *Raise the rates! Problem solved! The end!*


There it is, so simple. But, drivers need someone going to bat for them in Washington, we need an association, pay dues
on an national scale so we can hire a lobbyist. Striking is not the answer, legislation is the answer.

Without that, poverty becomes you.

Right here is where right wingers introduce the classic strawman argument, and it goes like this:

Why not just raise rates to $10 per mile? Eh?

No, that would kill the goose that lays the egg ( and no one isasking for a golden egg, just one taht we can all eat an live on ).

It's a strawman argument, do not let them get away with that stupid argument.

Raise the rate to say, a minimum of 4x the IRS deductible.

Why? Okay, paid miles is about 50% of total miles driven during shift servicing Uber riders ( or any riders, if you are livery ) ( percentage will vary, according to driving style ).

so, the IRS deductible is 57.5 cents for all miles driven.

Therefore, a paid mile averages out to costing the driver 2x the deductible, so a quadrupling it makes the rate profitable. (With a lobbyist working for the association, that would be the goal, 4x IRS deductible as price floor as legislation ). The timer adds another 50 cents per mile ( guestimating), about. It's a bonus, but a needed one. 4x isn't really enough. But, this rate would put the total rate closer to what taxis are charging, and it would be profitable. Also, the timer should rise according to lenght of waiting time, for example, if a wait exceeds 10 minutes, the timer kicks up to a buck a minute. ( this will discourage people wanting to tie you up and pay you little for doing it ).

UBer would lose some customers, but people who are so cheap not to hire an UberX at these rates really should be doing UberPOOL, so that will be the saver for them. With UberPOOL, you give up exclusivity for a low price, so the trade off works for all concerned. However, drivers should be allowed to opt out, if they want.

That's my suggestion for improving uber.

Here's the thing, if you allow yourself to be exploited, it tears at your soul,
it destroys you, you lose your dignity, and when you lose that, you lose your humanity.

But, that's okay for libertarians, they believe 'any job is better than no job'.

I adamantly, vehemently oppose that mindset, as cruel, as evil.

( by the way, I'm not totally anti-libertarian; they're right on legalizing drugs, prostitution,
non-meddling in foreign affairs, and probably a few other things I can live with. )


----------



## Greguzzi (Jan 9, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> Tsk tsk...
> Romney told the world his tax rate was 15%. A secretary pays 35%. Thats' a lot more pain you'll feel if you are a secretary,
> and though the number is greater, it's a lot less if pain if you are rich as romney.
> 
> ...


A bunch of trite propaganda followed by one bit of truth. Isn't it pathetic that the best the dems could come up with is the female don of a crime family?


----------



## Greguzzi (Jan 9, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> There it is, so simple. But, drivers need someone going to bat for them in Washington, we need an association, pay dues
> on an national scale so we can hire a lobbyist. Striking is not the answer, legislation is the answer.
> 
> Without that, poverty becomes you.
> ...


More government is always the answer to some folks. Too bad for the rest of us that more government is usually the wrong answer, as it is in the above screed.


----------



## Imchasinyou (Mar 4, 2016)

Wallyma said:


> How would you avoid 'profiling'?


Even though I think we should have a riders profile picture available to us as well as their destination, I can still quite easily profile a rider based on name if I so choose. If I dont want to pick up blacks, i look for the combo names. Names made up out of thin air that appear to be a combination of different names, Asians are pretty easy to pick out, So are Indians, not native american Indians. Its very easy to pick out those you may or may not want to take some where just based on their name and where the ride pick up point is. The problem is that I can not guarantee that the person in my vehicle is the person on the account. I know for a fact that at least 20% of my riders are not the account holder. So what do you do? Take them and get the full fare or cancel and get the cancellation fee? If you take them and know for a fact that its not the account holder, do you still have coverage on the insurance policy? I doubt it.

As Uber drivers, you need to 
A) Organize those drivers in your city to stop driving for about 3 days. Not even for Surge. Basically a walk out. This gets attention because the cities money flow stops for Uber. Notify media outlets near you about it and try to get coverage on the news and radio spots. 
B) Dont ever consider a union, they are not what they once were and now are just money funnels. Your not making enough as it is, why would you want to pay a union to get you more money? Money gained would go to dues anyhow. Now your back where you started.
C) Flood Ubers email support system with your complaints. Thousands of drivers need to do this to get their attention.
D) The easiest solution is to just stop driving. If its a source of needed income, even a minimum wage job will likely pay you better.

Do not ever involve politicians! They have their own agenda's. They do what is best for THEM and only THEM.
Democrats are the worst about it. They constantly try to play Robin Hood and yet they make way more money than you think from several sources. Why do I mention the Robin Hood game? They have so much money to be considered rich and yet they have HUGE homes, multiple homes, fly all over the world at our expense and yet for some reason give VERY LITTLE back in the way of donations and supporting the poor people they want to rob the rich to provide support.

"Half of Bill and Hillary Clinton's charitable giving last year went to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, according to a review of the latest financial disclosures from their private foundation.
The Clintons earned more than $28 million in 2014 and claimed around $3 million in income as charitable tax deductions, according to tax returns released by Hillary Clinton's campaign last Friday. The campaign emphasized Clinton's charitable giving in a press statement, saying that it "represented 10.8 percent" of her income in 2014. But roughly half of that money-$1.8 million-appears to have been channeled to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation."

another article.

"Republican states are more generous than Democratic states by a wide margin. In GOP states like Utah and Mississippi, families donate more than seven percent of their income to charity. In liberal New England states like Massachusetts, the number is less than half that."

Clinton, Bloody hands and likes to skate past the regulations she was bound to by LAW
Sanders, way too far left. Trying to follow European failed economy system. NOTHING is FREE. It all has to be paid for somehow. Who is going to pay for the freebies he wants to provide? YOU in taxes! arent you taxed enough?
Trump, The next Putin. HUGE ego and is always right even when wrong. No political experience. Spouts unreasonable claims of what he is going to do. "From 1990 through 2009, Trump has personally donated a total of just $3.7 million to his foundation, which was incorporated in 1987. In fact, the billionaire is not even the largest contributor to his own charitable organization."
Cruz, Seems to be following the successful campaign of Reagan. Economy made a turn around during the Reagan years.
Kasich, has a great history of getting things done. Turned Ohio from a deficit to a surplus financially following a liberal politician whom damn near bankrupt the state.

Notes: I do not have a political affiliation although I do favor those with a history of making the economy better.


----------



## Imchasinyou (Mar 4, 2016)

Wallyma said:


> Let me reframe this:
> If you had total control of driver/passenger apps and ecosystem, how would you increase profits.
> 
> I know a lot of people are frustrated, it's evident by the shut-downs and shaking of the fist comments in this post.
> ...


I do have a plan, all my math proves to be pretty promising, Ive researched having an app built with the infrastructure to support it. Where I fall short is the money i need to put it all in action. Care to lend me about 100k? I mean thats a small amount of money to get in to the game and compete with Uber and Lyft and allow drivers all the info they deserve and need and still provide exceptional service to clients while keeping the costs down for them and maximizing the profits of each and every driver.

It will take one serious competitor to change the way the system works to either make Uber/Lyft retract to other markets or to shut them down!


----------



## Greguzzi (Jan 9, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> Uber is the result of libertarian thinking, and it goes like this: Whatever the rich can get away with, they will get away with it.
> 
> To a libertarian, that's life, deal with it.
> 
> ...


LOL. You're as ignorant about political philosophy as you are about economics. Constitutional civil libertarian, here. In my perfect whirled you'd see laudatory stories in the press about a married gay couple having defended their legal pot plants with a legal submachine gun. Freedom, in other words, not the fascialism we have in the US today, thanks to the nut burgers on the left and right.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Greguzzi said:


> LOL. You're as ignorant about political philosophy as you are about economics. Constitutional civil libertarian, here. In my perfect whirled you'd see laudatory stories in the press about a married gay couple having defended their legal pot plants with a legal submachine gun. Freedom, in other words, not the fascialism we have in the US today, thanks to the nut burgers on the left and right.


As usual, the best the right can provide when confronted with hard data and facts, are strawmen, mudslinging, name-calling, and more strawmen -- and the last thing they will do, as you have just done, is offer nothing of substance to support your position, not even a simple path of logic. Surely you could do that, without the ad hominens? I guess I'm asking too much.

They, more than any other group in my observation, are more prone to taking the lower road.

One must ask, "from what well does such a mindset spring"? Their minds seem to be filled with nothing more than a bucket of thought terminating clichés. I know this because, in the early 80s, I was a libertarian. I didn't vote for Reagan, I voted for Ed Clark, who was, at at the time, the Libertarian nominee. BecauseI was one myself, I know a lot about how guys like you think, how you argue -- I know your tricks, and they are nothing more than tricks. The worst method of debating is posturing, and the right do that in spades. They will attack you personally, flaunt their education, denigrate yours, as if any of such things has anything to do with a solid argument in favor of their position. It doesn't. So, if you want to debate me, you'd better do better than to sling a little mud my way, drive on the low road and offer cartoonisms and posturing for your argument. And please abandon those thought - terminating clichés that litter your mind, it's unbecoming of decency. Okay, I'll do my best, as well, but when push comes to shove, I might go arrogant on you, but you made me do it -- no man is perfect.

Donald Trump is the quintessential example of the the low road. He never takes the high road when debating, always the low road, because,
in his bizarre uninformed and shallow world, he believes the low road succeeds. He has expressed it this way " being presidential would be boring". That's a sad statement if there ever were one, but to his low - information followers, it makes sense. In other words, it makes sense to stupid people ( and, unfortunately, there are plenty of them in the world ). It might work for awhile in the short run, but never in the long run.

If I were an impartial observer, and did not know who was right, and all I had to go by was which of the two
debaters operated on higher ground, who better articulated their view, who appealed to my inner sensibilities,
I sure has hell wouldn't pick a right winger.

On that basis alone, devoid of the more important aspects of the debate, if I were a betting man , the odds are that the right wingers are on the wrong side of the argument most of the time ( and libertarians about 50% of the time ).

Also, anyone who flaunts their education as a method of posturing while trying to win an argument, is the last person I would trust. History is replete with authoritative disasters.

It also is one of the items on the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit.


----------



## NuberUber (Dec 28, 2015)

Argh!!! Y'all shut the heck up about politics!!

The title of the thread is "ideas that can help UBER..." Not whose politics do you agree with.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Imchasinyou said:


> Even though I think we should have a riders profile picture available to us as well as their destination, I can still quite easily profile a rider based on name if I so choose. If I dont want to pick up blacks, i look for the combo names. Names made up out of thin air that appear to be a combination of different names, Asians are pretty easy to pick out, So are Indians, not native american Indians. Its very easy to pick out those you may or may not want to take some where just based on their name and where the ride pick up point is. The problem is that I can not guarantee that the person in my vehicle is the person on the account. I know for a fact that at least 20% of my riders are not the account holder. So what do you do? Take them and get the full fare or cancel and get the cancellation fee? If you take them and know for a fact that its not the account holder, do you still have coverage on the insurance policy? I doubt it.
> 
> As Uber drivers, you need to
> A) Organize those drivers in your city to stop driving for about 3 days. Not even for Surge. Basically a walk out. This gets attention because the cities money flow stops for Uber. Notify media outlets near you about it and try to get coverage on the news and radio spots.
> ...


The deficits tripled under Reagan. Reagan tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan as head of the federal reserve. Greenspan later admitted, when confronted with the material facts, that his libertarian philosophical approach was misguided and had not serve the country as he imagined it would. In other words, when given a chance to do whatever the want with impunity, he assumed that corporations would be guided by the principle of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" --- it would save the day ( that markets command business people to do the right thing, since it's in their financial interest to do so. History proves this assumption to be absolutely false ). All it did was slap the US upside the proverbial head.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

NuberUber said:


> Argh!!! Y'all shut the heck up about politics!!
> 
> The title of the thread is "ideas that can help UBER..." Not whose politics do you agree with.


I hear ya, but wise ideas about what to do in Uberland have a lot to do with political philosophy, I'm willing to keep politics aligned
with that in mind. uber is founded on libertarian principles, and all I am trying to do is debate why libertarian principles
are not Uber drivers' best friend, that we should recommend courses of action arising out of different ways of thinking. 
No one has the perfect answer, but talking about them is healthy.

But, it's time to close this thread, and move on.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Greguzzi said:


> This is exactly right. Uber regards each market as its own science experiment in which they can gather more data toward perfecting their business model-a model whose goal is to get its drivers to drive for the lowest possible cost to Uber and its riders to pay the most possible to Uber, consistent with the need for company growth.
> 
> What this means for drivers is that you should not plan on Uber as a dependable and profitable gig. Uber thinks of you as a washer of dishes or a flipper of burgers and wants to pay you minimum wage or less, while sticking you with all the direct costs of driving around the company's entitled passengers. Know your expenses and get out as soon as driving is no longer profitable. For most markets, that tipping point was reached months ago, with the last round of price cuts.


POST # 6/Greguzzi: SING IT, BROTHER !


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

NuberUber said:


> One thing I have learned since I started doing the Uber thang is that everything Uber does is driven by numbers and data.
> 
> Bottom line is maximize profits. This means getting drivers to drive for as little as possible and riders to ride at the highest rates they will be willing to. Uber is constantly running numbers on this to find the sweet spot. They constantly adjust and consistency is not ever in the mix. The main motivator is to grow and become as large as possible. There is a balance they are looking to find and many equations to evaluate in order to achieve this.


POST#4/NuberUber: C O R R E C T I O N
#Travi$ K. Whatapr♤♡k!
A B A N D O N E D the Goal of Maximizing
Profits when he FIRST CUT THE RATES ! !

EVERY UPNFer who had Posted in 2014
continuously expressed bewilderment
that "The Onanist Champion" would
LOWER PRICES when there was NEVER
an Instance of PAX complaining about
the Original Slightly-below-TaxiMetered-
Fares.
The ONLY "Look-at-the-Books" that the
#[F]Uber allowed was a 15-months-earlier
UnNamed Quarter with an $80 Million
Operating Loss and THAT revelation was
OVER a Year Ago. Furiously Backpedal-
ling #[F]UberFuhrer recently BOASTED
that his CHICOM Division "expects to
Reach Parity within a Year." Thats $2B
B L O W N...never to be recouped. Hi$
Inve$tor$ SHOULD be Beating Him with
a $tick...instead they Continuously Polish
his Knob and Laud his "Genius".

Mentoring Bison: I'm D I S G U S T E D !


----------



## Greguzzi (Jan 9, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> As usual, the best the right can provide when confronted with hard data and facts, are strawmen, mudslinging, name-calling, and more strawmen -- and the last thing they will do, as you have just done, is offer nothing of substance to support your position, not even a simple path of logic. Surely you could do that, without the ad hominens? I guess I'm asking too much.
> 
> They, more than any other group in my observation, are more prone to taking the lower road.
> 
> ...


I am not a Republican. I am not a conservative. I am not of the right at all, in any way, shape, or form. Nor am I of the left. I don't support Trump and share nothing in common with him. Telling rant you shot off on, though. And very funny.

Rather, I am a constitutional civil libertarian. I believe in freedom. Period. No "buts" required. Leftists and rightists only believe in the freedoms that they think you should have, whereas I believe in them all. If I were in charge, there would be as few laws as possible restricting the citizen's right to do as s/he pleases, but there would also be very harsh penalties for anyone who harms others.

If you want to proceed in this conversation from the basis of this knowledge of who I am, I would be happy to do so. If you want to just continue ranting at a straw man imago that exists only in your mind, I'll continue to dismiss you as just another crazy old coot shouting at the moon.


----------



## Greguzzi (Jan 9, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> The deficits tripled under Reagan. Reagan tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan as head of the federal reserve. Greenspan later admitted, when confronted with the material facts, that his libertarian philosophical approach was misguided and had not serve the country as he imagined it would. In other words, when given a chance to do whatever the want with impunity, he assumed that corporations would be guided by the principle of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" --- it would save the day ( that markets command business people to do the right thing, since it's in their financial interest to do so. History proves this assumption to be absolutely false ). All it did was slap the US upside the proverbial head.


The deficit tripled under a Democratic congress, not under Reagan. Congress has sole power over the pursestrings, and never did the Republicans control congress during the 1980s.

Similarly, the last time we had a budget surplus was under a Republican congress, in the last years of the Clinton presidency. Yet Clinton gets the credit, not Newt Gingrich. LOL.

You keep speaking economic nonsense. You should just stop.


----------



## Wallyma (Jan 9, 2016)

Well that was a failed experiment. I am glad a couple of people posted had 
ideas. I also forgot how forums can be a mean and cynical place.


----------



## Greguzzi (Jan 9, 2016)

In the context of Uber, you can blame drivers for being cynical ? LOL.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Greguzzi said:


> Look, I am glad it worked for you. You seem like a nice fellow, but if you could not afford $700/month for health insurance, it is unlikely that you actually pay any income taxes, or your priorities are vastly askew. I pay way more than $700/month for my "affordable" Obungholecare policy and the deductibles that apply effectively mean that it will be used only in the case of catastrophic circumstances. It is in every way inferior to the plan Ol' Jugears promised so many times I would be able to keep. He lied straight to my face, and I am not at all happy about that. I voted Obama in '08, too, and feel stabbed in the back by that lying sack of shit.
> 
> And, yes, our health-insurance system was in need of some tweaking prior to Obungholecare, but today it is in every way worse. But it is only worse for those who actually pay full cost for it. Even those who got put on subsidized plans are finding that the deductibles are so high that they can really afford to use their plan only in case of catastrophe, anyway. On the other hand, people who qualified for plans that are essentially Medicaid get a very sweet deal, indeed, as typically there are no copays for anything, let alone any deductibles. It's all free, swipe yo' EBT!
> 
> ...


I seem to remember it was a republican who took the nation off the gold standard.
Oh well, moving on......

You wrote:

"In my perfect whirled you'd see laudatory stories in the press about a married gay couple having defended their legal pot plants with a legal submachine gun. Freedom, in other words, not the fascialism we have in the US today, thanks to the nut burgers on the left and right."

You should be smart enough to know that the Somalia example is a cartoonish exaggeration ( as in not to be taken literally )
to illustrate a point. I mean, if you are willing to use cartoonish characterizations, you can't admonish me for doing the same.

Libertarians are about half right. I would agree that gay married couples have the right to grow pot, as everyone should have that right. I would agree with libertarians that citizens have the right to take any drug they desire, with impunity. If someone wants to do themselves in, they should have that right, as long as they don't do it to someone else. Then the argument would be, should drug dealing be allowed? No, I believe the government should control the production and distribution of narcotics, and give them freely or a modest price to people in controlled areas of each county. If you need a fix, go to the federal district in your county and get your fix, and say high there ( where you can't leave ). This would create other problems, but the problems would be much less worse than the status quo. There really is no perfect solution to the drug problem. I'm not solid on that idea, I'm open to other ideas. But, the war on drugs is as good as prohibition was in the previous century, it does far more harm to society than good.

But, under no circumstances should the current level machine gun regulation be repealed. Only "nutburgers" would want such a world where anyone can own any kind of weapon they desire. The "founding fathers" never meant a world with unregulated arms, that's nuts.

The plight you describe about your having to pay $700 a month, is wrong if you cant afford it, then it would be a question of tweaking the law, not repealing it. But, understand, I'm not "pro-Obamacare" per se ( but it's better than the status quo, before ) I want medicare for everyone. In that system, you would not be paying $700. You would not be paying for health care directly. Taxes would be higher, but they would be less, overal, if you are not having to pay directly for health care. Medicare is the cheapest health care delivery system. This is Bernie's platform, with which I agree.

In your previous heath care plan, before Obamacare, how could you be certain that, in 20 years, if you got some serious disease, that that insurance company wouldn't deny your claim? Since they were denying claims a lot, and insurance firms had entire departments assigned to that purpose, how can you be sure? Of what value is insurance if you can't be sure? Insurance is assured loss, but spread out over the course of one's life, so that one doesnt have to suddenly fork out a lot of dough when a catastrophy occurs, insurance is supposed to cure us of that uncertainty.
Well, prior to Obamacare, it did not. It might have given you feeling of certainty, but it would have been a false certianty if you weren't aware of it, but being aware of the reality of status quo insurance prior to obamacare, you should.

So, a system where you can be sure --- there's no way out on that one, the cost will be more. It will be more because, in truth, the value will be more, "certainty". Certainty of being covered is more valuable than uncertainty. Then the more who contribute to the mandated system , the cheaper it will be for everyone. Those who resist the mandated system, are contributing to its higher costs.

The question is, how do you reach a place where everyone is covered and prior existing conditions and claims denial is not allowed? There are really only two ways, either
you have a universal health care system ( libs want medicare for all ) or you have mandated insurance system.

But, that's not what libertarians and conservatives want. With libertarians and conservatives, only those who can afford it, will get it.
Those who can't afford it, will have to flounder about and find a charity who will help them. That's the libertarian reality.
Well, when you're old and sick, that's the last thing you want to be bothered with, even if you can't afford it, you want to covered by something, where all you do is make a call, and you're going to get help.

That's a particular philosophy, fine. Liberals don't agree. Either you believe health care is a priviledge, or health care is a right, they are two different philosophies. The argument conservatives always give, "I don't want to pay for your care", is a bogus argument. As i stated, taxes are a collective effort ( even if only half pay, but thats a lie, everone pays all kinds of taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, federal taxes, social security tax, payroll tax, everywhere one turns, were paying some kind of tax, even if we don't an actual income tax ), so they are a collect effort distributed for the greater good by elected officials ( that's the theory, anyway). How taxes are spent can never please everyone, it's a given. But, it undermines the argument of whining about where your taxes are spent. You can whine, but it doesn't support the argument that policies for greater good should be repealed just because you, personally, don't like it.

We shall see what the voters decide, and I doubt they will side with you.


----------



## Slavic Riga (Jan 12, 2016)

Wallyma said:


> Let me reframe this:
> If you had total control of driver/passenger apps and ecosystem, how would you increase profits


Travis K will not relinquish his control on the app.
What has the* ecosystem* got to do with the post. Pls explain & Why are you asking us & not Uber. In other words you helping Uber with our replies.



Wallyma said:


> I know a lot of people are frustrated, it's evident by the shut-downs and shaking of the fist comments in this post.


Whom do you work for & whose side are you on.
When drivers/IC's feel cheated & abused. They will vent, wont you or do you or are you a employee.



Wallyma said:


> I am sure everyone here who has posted, especially the snarky ones, have great ideas.
> Pretend this is a thought exercise.
> Everyone reedit your posts. I am sure you have your own interesting ideas. I double dare ya.


Using the word snarky is demeaning to IC's.
What are you trying to dare us drivers with. We drivers don't work for Uber nor are we Uber employees daring us to come with solutions.
We are not a *'Focus Group'*, this is a *Opinion Forum *for IC's/partners/drivers. (you pick)
UBER the Company analyzes our wants & thoughts & still behaves the way it wants, & has stated that drivers & their cars wont be needed as there will be autonomous cars to drive for Uber - that's my interesting idea.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Dissapointed that this became a right-left hammer session.

Im less Libertarian then I was before TNC.
Free market is all well and good til it disrupts ones formerly protected income.


----------



## Snowtop (Nov 11, 2014)

Thanks to the 2 that seem to just spew right and left wing propaganda. Little truth in what either one says. This is an Uber forum. If I wanted to listen to someone tell half truths and lies I would watch MSNBC or Fox News.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Greguzzi said:


> A bunch of trite propaganda followed by one bit of truth. Isn't it pathetic that the best the dems could come up with is the female don of a crime family?


Rather pathetic the right came up with Reagan, --- by the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations, etc, and the right gave us Bush, Cheney, et al and ensuing war crimes, suspension of habeus corpus ( later shot down, but it was supsended for awhile ) NSA listening to phone calls without warrants, etc, let alone the right bringing us Hoover who presided over the worst finanical meltdown in US History. They've been trying to take Hillary down for 30 years, and she still stands. I seem to remember the "crime family" leaving the country with a multibillion dollar surplus when they left office, which Bush quickly got rid of, and the country was driven into the biggest ditch short of the crash of '29 ( a gift of Hoover , a republican). Republicans have fought medicare, civil rights, bills for improving infrastructure, environment, just about every bit of legistlation that is good, they fought it under the bizarre notion that corporations, if left unfettered to do their will, will do the right thing and take care of everyone.

I don't think so. History proves otherwise. If that's propaganda, then please explain if anything I mentioned is not true.

But, this is an Uber forum, and fine, I'll grant you that.
Uber is the result of libertarian thinking, and all I'm doing is attempting to debunking philosophy upon which Uber is built and rethink it, so possible a new idea can replace it. In order to do that, it's easy to get sidetracked with other arguments, no one is perfect.
This will be my last political post not related to Uber. You can applaud, now.


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

Can you imagine how happy drivers would feel if there's was a tip option? They continue to just piss off drivers and passengers that wish they could. The UberX rates are also a total joke. $2 a mile should be the min. You cannot turn a profit below $1 a mile. Nope.


----------



## Slavic Riga (Jan 12, 2016)

Here is the request & the word is 'TIPS'.
Most of the bloggers have been requesting, a feature on the app to Tip us, nothing more, nothing less.
Until today its not adhered to, but repeatedly reminded to watch the video on how to get riders to rate you 5*****.

Tried to trade-in my 5***** at the gas station, was told by the attendant 'That Negotiations are on-going' until than pay-up.


----------



## dnlbaboof (Nov 13, 2015)

pay a living wage of 1.70 per mile, get rid of surge to please pax simple solution


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

dnlbaboof said:


> pay a living wage of 1.70 per mile, get rid of surge to please pax simple solution


You'd need about $2 in my city, but it's the right idea. I started at $1.90 with UBerX, and was making as much as I am with UberBlack, ( but working harder and putting miles on my car )
I think getting rid of the surge is a good idea, I don't know any drivers that will drive any length to a surge area, though they will if it's a couple minutes away, or they are already there, but that doesn't do what the purpose of surge intends, since if you are already very near, you'll get the ping, anyway. For UberBlack, it does the opposite, when there is a surge, the pings stop ( no one wants to pay multiples of $15 or $25 minimums ) so if I'm in an area that surges, I will leave. I emailed Uber about this, and of course, the reply was totally lame.

that's another recommendation, have an anonymous suggestion box ( online ) where real higher ups see the messages, not some yahoo who cuts and pastes answers, who, half the time, answers a question you did not ask.

Another suggestion, two way radios in our vehicles. I had them with a taxi, and also when I worked deliverying legal documents. They aren't that expensive. Not for dispatch purposes, but there are situations where it would be real nice to get an immediate response from a live person.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

NuberUber said:


> I think you missed my point. Your inexpensive surgery was only inexpensive for you. Do you think the surgeon took a largely reduced pay to perform your surgery? You think the anesthesia that was used was discounted? The surgery suite you occupied was only $50 for the few hours you needed it??
> 
> Healthcare expenses continue to rise and yet you were able to get a surgery that usually cost thousands for just a few hundred. You don't see the problem there? Where did the rest of the cost go?


How is that different than any insurance , ACA or otherwise?

It's a mistake to assess the validity of how insurance works from a singular event, insurance works on a collective level, it must be
understood collectively.

The whole point of ACA is to make it affordable to those who would not otherwise afford it. That would be guys like me. 
If everyone joins in, it will pay for those who need it more by those who don't, but for those who don't, they will eventually
need it more when they get older, so that's how the system works. When the program is new, the older who join anew 
will benefit more than those who put into it all their lives, but there is no way to avoid that plight, it has tp begin at some point ( if it is to begin ).

Health care costs have risen, but much less than under Bush. 
From that one could conclude ACA has slowed the rate of growth, not hastened it. 
Yes, I know its more expensive for some, but with the ACA, you can't be denied to get insurance, nor when you file a claim,
and there was always that possibility before the ACA. Certainty is a value added that did not exist before the ACA, let's not forget about that fact.

So what, you want to return to the status quo? I don't. I hope for medicare for all, one of Bernie's objectives.


----------



## HiFareLoRate (Sep 14, 2015)

Only problem I have with Uber is its existence.
Once that is resolved, humanity will once again..... 

be restored.


----------



## D Town (Apr 8, 2015)

The only idea Uber needs is to stop being a POS company. At this point they've burned too many bridges. Sell the company.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Greguzzi said:


> More government is always the answer to some folks. Too bad for the rest of us that more government is usually the wrong answer, as it is in the above screed.


The "more government" argument makes no sense. What does that mean?

IF you mean getting rid of a law that is unecessarily intruding into your life, without benefitting anyone and annoying everyone, 
most people are for that. I am for that, it makes sense.

But, conversely, why reject a law that would benefit you? Are you saying you'd reject it just because it adds more ink to some law book somwhere?

That makes no sense.

A regulation that would require ridehare app companies to set rates that's not exploiting riders is just and would benefit you.

I'm all for getting rid of unjust laws, but we need laws that are just, and have teeth.


----------



## 60000_TaxiFares (Dec 3, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Dissapointed that this became a right-left hammer session.
> 
> Im less Libertarian then I was before TNC.
> Free market is all well and good til it disrupts ones formerly protected income.


Yeah , that Shumpeter's "Gales of Creative Destruction" in capitalism is great... until you're a leather saddle harness maker or draft horse breeder.... and you giggle as some *weirdo* named "*Ford*" comes around in that strange .... putt .putt... horseless carriage he tore out of his garage last week.. (to big to fit out the door...... sure sign of failure...) .... but that's why we have (had?) 99 weeks of unemployment... right???

Stay Safe

CC

Stay Safe

CC


----------



## 60000_TaxiFares (Dec 3, 2015)

HiFareLoRate said:


> Only problem I have with Uber is its existence.
> Once that is resolved, humanity will once again.....
> 
> be restored.


But what about Halliburton?, or EXXON?, or Cash Amburgy's Bargain Barn Exit 31 in South Lebanon Ohio (always remember, you can save cash with Cash !!)

Or the other 50,000 companies with more than 2000 employees in the world????

(BTW that lawn tractor we bought years ago from Bargain Barn never did quite run right so while we're talking corporate villainy...)

CC


----------



## Slavic Riga (Jan 12, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> How is that different than any insurance , ACA or otherwise?
> 
> It's a mistake to assess the validity of how insurance works from a singular event, insurance works on a collective level, it must be
> understood collectively.
> ...


Move or RELOCATE to Canada.
*PROBLEM SOLVED*


----------



## 60000_TaxiFares (Dec 3, 2015)

Slavic Riga said:


> Move or RELOCATE to Canada.
> *PROBLEM SOLVED*


That's funny !!! We just had a friend from *Canada* travel to the U.S. to pay $2000 for a newer 3 Tesla MRI!!!!

Why would anybody pay *$2000* for a MRI that is *""free""* in Canada ?

Try an *8 month* (minimum) waiting list...... for the older 1 or 2 Tesla technology.... perhaps circa 1979!! 

Those Canadians sure do respect history!.........

So much for *Canada's* version of the worker's paradise...... and the *Environmental terrorist economy* and *filthy Sulfer ridden oil sands* and *other commodities* that mostly fund it... in Canada's case Big _Ultra-dirty_ Oil....

Why couldn't those *Canadian fools* convince all those plants and animals 800 million years ago to die there and have a giant lake of *pure sweet crude* virtually popping up for the taking like in *Saudi*??? Poor planning I call it....

Perhaps I'm getting too "left wing"..... Canada is *almost* as bad as UBER !!!!!

Stay Safe

CC


----------



## Slavic Riga (Jan 12, 2016)

60000_TaxiFares said:


> That's funny !!! We just had a friend from *Canada* travel to the U.S. to pay $2000 for a newer 3 Tesla MRI!!!!
> 
> Why would anybody pay *$2000* for a MRI that is *""free""* in Canada ?
> 
> ...


*I have been requested not to get into countries & Govt. Politics. Your inability to keep drifting from the main objective of my words into diatribe must have taken away convincing arguments.*


----------



## Lando74 (Nov 23, 2014)

Oscar Levant said:


> Well, let me tell you a little story of my cartoon fantasy.
> 
> In 2008, I voted for Obama.
> 
> ...


Let me tell you a story of my hardcore reality. Our insurance through my wife's employer was much cheaper and our deductible was less than half of what it is today. A couple years ago our daughter got pneumonia and required hospitalization. Thanks to Obamacare and the increased burdens on employers (passed to employees), we paid $6,000 for one day in the hospital instead of $2,500. Don't just say "taxes are taxes." There's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone pays and it doesn't just come out of thin air. And that 1% nonsense is B.S. - they're rich for a reason and they're far too smart to ever bear the burden.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

Undermensch said:


> It's driven by a particular interpretation of numbers, sure. Doesn't mean it's right.
> 
> Wal-Mart was driven by numbers too. None of those numbers told them to not be evil, so they did. End result is they made a lot of money but today they are one of the most hated companies and people are stopping shopping there in favor of Costco and Target because they aren't evil.


^^^
Don't forget Sam's Club. LOL.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

Slavic Riga said:


> *I have been requested not to get into countries & Govt. Politics. Your inability to keep drifting from the main objective of my words into diatribe must have taken away convincing arguments.*





Oscar Levant said:


> Well, let me tell you a little story of my cartoon fantasy.
> 
> In 2008, I voted for Obama.
> 
> ...


^^^
Your deductible was $300.? 
Must be wonderful being subsidized.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

Oscar Levant said:


> The deficits tripled under Reagan. Reagan tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan as head of the federal reserve. Greenspan later admitted, when confronted with the material facts, that his libertarian philosophical approach was misguided and had not serve the country as he imagined it would. In other words, when given a chance to do whatever the want with impunity, he assumed that corporations would be guided by the principle of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" --- it would save the day ( that markets command business people to do the right thing, since it's in their financial interest to do so. History proves this assumption to be absolutely false ). All it did was slap the US upside the proverbial head.


^^^
And Oblahblah spend more than all previous presidents combined.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

60000_TaxiFares said:


> Why would anybody pay *$2000* for a MRI that is *""free""* in Canada ?


^^^
Mainly because the average wait for an MRI is six months in Canada, and MRI's are not given just to anybody that wants one.... you get one when you NEED one.
That being said, a lot of people in Canada die during the time that they are in line for an MRI. 
Interesting to note that there are more MRI units in the city of Los Angeles than there are in all of Canada.
I'm talking about the "City" of Los Angeles.... not including all of the outlying areas that get Los Angeles city services like police, for instance, the San Fernando Valley, etc. (Burbank and Glendale have their own police)

So, those people with metastasizing brain tumors might think that spending a couple of grand is worth it rather than going home, taking aspirin and waiting to die or till it becomes inoperable.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> Mainly because the average wait for an MRI is six months in Canada, and MRI's are not given just to anybody that wants one.... you get one when you NEED one.
> That being said, a lot of people in Canada die during the time that they are in line for an MRI.
> Interesting to note that there are more MRI units in the city of Los Angeles than there are in all of Canada.
> ...


What happens to the people here who don't have $2000 for an MRI?

The US has great medical care--for a price. If you can't afford it, then what?

Don't get me started on dentistry.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> What happens to the people here who don't have $2000 for an MRI?
> 
> The US has great medical care--for a price. If you can't afford it, then what?
> 
> Don't get me started on dentistry.


^^^
Tell me about it!
Before I went back to work driving for the company where I have dental, I spent 10 grand on my teefs. 
My parents spent a fortune on my teeth, so 5 grand of it was for Invisalign for teeth that drifted a bit over the years after the braces, but the other 9,700 bux was for virtually nothing like the cracked molar where a quarter of the tooth (one lobe) fell away. LOL. 
Beverly Hills dentist that has pictures of his collection of Lambos on the wall in his waiting room.


----------



## 60000_TaxiFares (Dec 3, 2015)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> What happens to the people here who don't have $2000 for an MRI?
> 
> The US has great medical care--for a price. If you can't afford it, then what?
> 
> Don't get me started on dentistry.


People have health ins by their employer

Formerly, many were on Medicaid..... or medicare...

Or perhaps the _now to be seen how much it sucks_ Obummercare.... and the clusterf**k the Democrats have bestowed..... perhaps a $5000 deductible.. for a $3000yr policy?????

You go to the *Free Clinic*

The *Dentist* at our local *free clinic* seems to be pretty good.... some people have shown me his work......

I don't know how Dentistry is somehow "separate" from all other health issues, with complications and all but that's the way it is......

If *medical insurance* started making *Dental Care* part of regular health insurance prices *would probably double* however.... so...

One must be careful what one wishes for...

CC


----------



## 60000_TaxiFares (Dec 3, 2015)

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> Tell me about it!
> Before I went back to work driving for the company where I have dental, I spent 10 grand on my teefs.
> My parents spent a fortune on my teeth, so 5 grand of it was for Invisalign for teeth that drifted a bit over the years after the braces, but the other 9,700 bux was for virtually nothing like the cracked molar where a quarter of the tooth (one lobe) fell away. LOL.
> Beverly Hills dentist that has pictures of his collection of Lambos on the wall in his waiting room.


Gawd. Wouldn't just getting the molar pulled, leaving it empty or having a bridge , root canal or partial be better... 9000 for one tooth?

Can't one get all their teeth replaced with beautiful white implants for $30,000?? In a day or two???

I'm missing all my wisdom teeth, and another molar..... been gone for many years... seems like no problem..... Total cost would be about $1700 today....

I can see how, sequentially, one can be nickeled and dimed to death over a period of years...

You're only one bicycle ride, fall, flying hammer or metal, fight or other accident from missing most of your front teeth so......

Even without insurance companies , it seems Dentists can afford fine art......

CC


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

Greguzzi said:


> LOL. Anyone who thinks the Democrats look out for the little guy when the Republicans only look out for evil corporations is a simpleton who lives in a cartoon fantasy of real life.


The same can be said of any GOP supporter who believes a republican will help raise wages so he/she can move out of the trailer, and into a home with real grass growing in the yard.

On average, the dems support workers much more than the GOP does. Prove me wrong.


----------



## phillipzx3 (May 26, 2015)

60000_TaxiFares said:


> People have health ins by their employer
> 
> Formerly, many were on Medicaid..... or medicare...
> 
> ...


Considering "Obummercare" is a Republican idea signed into law by a democrat, is pretty funny.

I wonder what GOP supporters would have called it had Bush signed the law; "the greatest thing on Earth care?"


----------



## UberPissed (Aug 13, 2014)

Here is how you fix it: You don't. 

What most of the people on this thread don't have - perspective. You all seem reasonably intelligent people. 

Uber poaches people that are not educated or have very little options. That's why the "smart" people only do it for a few months, before realizing they could make more selling their jizz or blood. 

Some of us more long-term people do it because we have other jobs and can supplement the crappy wages. Say what you will about Uber, but where else can you work as much or as little and drum up some short term cash (legally). That said, they still suck.

Any attempt to resolve issues through their "support" will prove my point. I even sent an email that said "don't respond to this by using a macro... Please actually read the matter so we don't need to send another 20 emails about it." 

I got a macro response that wasn't on point.


----------



## Realityshark (Sep 22, 2014)

NuberUber said:


> So do you really think that the surgery that cost a few thousands that you ended up getting for only $700 was on sale because of obamacare?
> 
> Hate to tell you but the surgery was just as expensive but someone else got to eat the costs. Explains those who were lucky enough to have their premiums increase from Obamacare!





NuberUber said:


> Argh!!! Y'all shut the heck up about politics!!
> 
> The title of the thread is "ideas that can help UBER..." Not whose politics do you agree with.


I love these two posts by this member. In one post she goes off about Obamacare and then a few post later she scolds people for going off topic. Can anyone say psychotic hypocrite.


----------



## Undermensch (Oct 21, 2015)

NuberUber said:


> I think you missed my point. Your inexpensive surgery was only inexpensive for you. Do you think the surgeon took a largely reduced pay to perform your surgery? You think the anesthesia that was used was discounted? The surgery suite you occupied was only $50 for the few hours you needed it??
> 
> Healthcare expenses continue to rise and yet you were able to get a surgery that usually cost thousands for just a few hundred. You don't see the problem there? Where did the rest of the cost go?


Guess you don't know how insurance works. It doesn't eliminate cost or cause anyone to eat the cost. What it does is spread the cost of risks with predictable rates, but an inability to predict who it will impact and when it will impact them, across the entire risk pool so that the person impacted does not bear the full cost but instead pays the average of the cost of care for everyone in the risk pool.

No one got hosed.


----------



## NuberUber (Dec 28, 2015)

Realityshark said:


> I love these two posts by this member. In one post she goes off about Obamacare and then a few post later she scolds people for going off topic. Can anyone say psychotic hypocrite.


I love this post. This member continues to show how to troll like a champ. Well done sir!!


----------



## tohellwithu (Nov 30, 2014)

I guess its just useless talking or discussing any fact about uber coz we all know that its a waste of time. So its really nice to be uber off.


----------



## Snowtop (Nov 11, 2014)

Left wing loons...right wing nuts. Gotta love this country.


----------



## Realityshark (Sep 22, 2014)

Undermensch said:


> Guess you don't know how insurance works.


Don't sweat it. The member spends countless hours spewing off about things they know nothing about.


----------



## Howie428Uber (Mar 4, 2016)

Americans talk about the cost of health plans, insurance, and government subsidies for healthcare all the time, but they almost never actually talk about the cost of healthcare.

Medical care buildings here are beautiful things containing room after room of underutilized equipment. Most doctors live in homes that would be considered Palaces elsewhere in the world. Nurses make just less than 70k a year in a country where the average household income is 51k. There are legions of millionaires who make their money by leaching off the healthcare system as part of the so called “free market.” The USA spends 17% of its GDP on healthcare, 8% of which is spent by the US government, but still dumps sick people in the streets. Meanwhile the United Kingdom spends 9% and Canada spends 11%, for which they cover everyone.

If Uber was the US healthcare system it would own every car on the road and they would all be Mercs. It would be a $50 minimum trip, with a mandatory “Healthy Glutes” fee of $25 for seat warming, and they’d charge you $25 for a bottle of water even if you never touch it. There would be laws making it illegal to offer anything less than Merc service, and travel would be restricted to only those whose employers decide it’s worth paying.

Healthcare reforms are never allowed to even question the ridiculous level of healthcare spending, because the system has the politicians tightly gripped and enough cash to swamp TV stations with glossy ads. Arguments about Obamacare are the equivalent of two people who are being mugged arguing about whose bag they are going to put their valuables into before they hand them over to the mugger.  

When it comes to taxes in the USA, Federal tax info is deceptive. Most low income earners are still paying social security, medicare, property, sales and local taxes, and many of those taxes do not scale up for high earners in proportion to their income. Putting cute names on taxes is a neat trick, but all the money goes to the same place. So as per the famous Warren Buffet example, his assistant pays a higher rate of tax than he does.


----------



## backstreets-trans (Aug 16, 2015)

Howie428Uber said:


> Americans talk about the cost of health plans, insurance, and government subsidies for healthcare all the time, but they almost never actually talk about the cost of healthcare.
> 
> Medical care buildings here are beautiful things containing room after room of underutilized equipment. Most doctors live in homes that would be considered Palaces elsewhere in the world. Nurses make just less than 70k a year in a country where the average household income is 51k. There are legions of millionaires who make their money by leaching off the healthcare system as part of the so called "free market." The USA spends 17% of its GDP on healthcare, 8% of which is spent by the US government, but still dumps sick people in the streets. Meanwhile the United Kingdom spends 9% and Canada spends 11%, for which they cover everyone.
> 
> ...


That's a dead on reply. Big Corp America has peoples views slanted by the erroneous info they spread. Plus they've started to pay off both parties along with local govts.


----------



## USArmy31B30 (Oct 30, 2015)

Have you forgotten that this UBER you are talking about? They only listen to the devil and no one else...


----------



## Greguzzi (Jan 9, 2016)

phillipzx3 said:


> Considering "Obummercare" is a Republican idea signed into law by a democrat, is pretty funny.
> 
> I wonder what GOP supporters would have called it had Bush signed the law; "the greatest thing on Earth care?"


Anybody can start an idea that is good but gets FUBARed in implementation. Such is the case with Obummercare.

Had Republicans implemented it, it would have been done very differently. If you can't see that, you are likely a Democrat.

I'm a civil libertarian, not in any way shape or form a Republican, so I am free to see the world as it is.


----------



## Greguzzi (Jan 9, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> The "more government" argument makes no sense. What does that mean?
> 
> IF you mean getting rid of a law that is unecessarily intruding into your life, without benefitting anyone and annoying everyone,
> most people are for that. I am for that, it makes sense.
> ...


It's still wrong. Restricting freedom is ALWAYS wrong. It used to be the Republicans looking to restrict freedoms. That has all shifted. It is now the Democrats always wanting to force people to do everything their way. Few people can see this, but it is the truth.


----------



## Greguzzi (Jan 9, 2016)

phillipzx3 said:


> The same can be said of any GOP supporter who believes a republican will help raise wages so he/she can move out of the trailer, and into a home with real grass growing in the yard.
> 
> On average, the dems support workers much more than the GOP does. Prove me wrong.


I am not a Republican.

Dems don't so much support workers as they look out for the interests of the corporations that support Democratic politicians such as the labor unions and other corporations that are looking to use government to protect their business models. Today's Democratic Party is run in a fascist manner and is financed by using force of government to promote and protect from competition politically favored companies.

The Repubs have their own business model that differs in significant details from the Dem business model, but it is stupid and silly to characterize the Dem business model as "better for workers." LOL.


----------



## Greguzzi (Jan 9, 2016)

Lando74 said:


> Let me tell you a story of my hardcore reality. Our insurance through my wife's employer was much cheaper and our deductible was less than half of what it is today. A couple years ago our daughter got pneumonia and required hospitalization. Thanks to Obamacare and the increased burdens on employers (passed to employees), we paid $6,000 for one day in the hospital instead of $2,500. Don't just say "taxes are taxes." There's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone pays and it doesn't just come out of thin air. And that 1% nonsense is B.S. - they're rich for a reason and they're far too smart to ever bear the burden.


Exactly right. You and I are the guys paying to subsidize all those who now pay nothing for their health insurance.

I am not 1 percenter. If I was, would I be driving for Uber?


----------



## Lando74 (Nov 23, 2014)

Undermensch said:


> Guess you don't know how insurance works. It doesn't eliminate cost or cause anyone to eat the cost. What it does is spread the cost of risks with predictable rates, but an inability to predict who it will impact and when it will impact them, across the entire risk pool so that the person impacted does not bear the full cost but instead pays the average of the cost of care for everyone in the risk pool.
> 
> No one got hosed.


Not everyone pays the "average cost." Now people with low income can get insurance for cheap (not a terrible thing). But people with higher income pay higher premiums and larger deductibles to cover the shortfall of those who pay less. That may sound "fair," but many people who are paying more aren't rich and don't exactly view this as disposable income. And it's a harder pill to swallow when people talk about how great their cheap insurance is thanks to obamacare and their erroneous thinking that it's not coming from their neighbors' pockets. The government isn't covering it out of generosity anymore than the insurance companies are.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

60000_TaxiFares said:


> Gawd. Wouldn't just getting the molar pulled, leaving it empty or having a bridge , root canal or partial be better... 9000 for one tooth?
> 
> Can't one get all their teeth replaced with beautiful white implants for $30,000?? In a day or two???
> 
> ...


^^^
It wasn't exactly 9 grand for one tooth, it was smoothing, polishing that tooth, etc. 
He says the tooth should last for as long as before the lobe separated.... that was the tooth that one of the "anchor" bands was on and over the years of orthodontia it was weakened. 
There was a lot of preventative procedures done too. 
I had two small fillings replaced with the stuff without mercury in it and I had a pinpoint cavity filled in one of my wisdom teeth.... the other fillings were in wisdom teeth too. 
Years ago, I was told that I should get my wisdom teeth pulled because "That's what everybody else does" but I actually chew back there and they came in straight and not impacted. 
My orthodontist once told me that my mouth was big enough for another set of wisdom teeth. LOL


----------



## BAKAD (Feb 22, 2016)

There are only two folks that have any control over a company like Uber: 

The owners/founders
The board of directors
We know the "owners" are the founders causing many of the issues now. They are also on the board. So the focus should be directed to the outside board of directors. They are often the investors in the company too. And they are the only ones that can tell the founders how they want things changed. They have large dollars invested in Uber so they have to listen.

While the founders may have controlling stock which gives them the legal right to do what they want. The outside board members/investors can shut down the funds if they don't get the changes they want. A big hammer with the funds Uber is sucking down.

*Outside Board Members *
John Gurley CFA * - *Member of the Board of Directors - Company Benchmark 
David Bonderman J.D. - Member of the Board of Directors - Company TPG Capital, L.P. 
David Drummond J.D.* - *Member of the Board of Directors - Company Alphabet Inc. (Google)​
Start sending information to these folks they will listen. You would too if you had billions of your funds on the line.


----------



## 60000_TaxiFares (Dec 3, 2015)

I dunno.... you may want to start shopping around, for dentists. Even check out the free clinic dentist's opinion. on stuff

I think I paid $1200 in today's money to have several impacted and regular wisdom teeth pulled... (Sadly, I don' t have a big mouth )

Got a molar pulled years ago as it was acting up and hurt.

I think an implant with titanium post for a nice shiny new artificial molar is about $2800? Less? More???

Oh well, the joys of medical bills.....

Maybe UBER will give us Dental.....


Stay Safe

CC


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

60000_TaxiFares said:


> I dunno.... you may want to start shopping around, for dentists. Even check out the free clinic dentist's opinion. on stuff
> 
> I think I paid $1200 in today's money to have several impacted and regular wisdom teeth pulled... (Sadly, I don' t have a big mouth )
> 
> ...


^^^
On the subject of implants. 
While the cost of the implants has come down substantially over particularly the last 10 or 15 years, I've talked to dentists about the efficacy of implants. 
The drawbacks are still there, like REALLY assiduous attention to oral hygiene. 
My cousin was the mistress (!) of a mega-millionaire out in Malibu and he had 8 implants on the front upper, and 8 on the bottom, and he told me that you really have to brush and keep the circulation in the gums going. 
Like, don't even miss a day. 
Also there are problems with bone loss, which these days they can grow to solidify the bone around the titanium pin. 
He finally died last year at 92, which is too bad because you can only get the straight scoop from somebody who actually has them, and he had his since about the time they came out.... 40 years maybe? Or something like that.
His were cosmetically great, with even a couple of imperfections thrown in for good measure, like a very small space between the two upper middle teeth. 
My mom had an implant.... the same tooth that I had break. 
She loved it.


----------



## 60000_TaxiFares (Dec 3, 2015)

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> On the subject of implants.
> While the cost of the implants has come down substantially over particularly the last 10 or 15 years, I've talked to dentists about the efficacy of implants.
> The drawbacks are still there, like REALLY assiduous attention to oral hygiene.
> ...


Yeah , my cousin had his upper front teeth replaced with an arch of 4 connected implants anchored on both ends... This was in 1969.... when he was 12.

One thing to remember is that the technology has greatly improved since the 1960s....

Still look ok 48 years later, but now that he's got dental, he's gonna have them replaced.

Maybe I gotta make myself available to a nice rich lady....

Stay Safe

CC


----------



## tripAces (Jun 18, 2015)

5 pages deep. And I see some side convo's since this topic probably got covered in 2 pages. 

But my 2 cent is this. Uber is all about making money for Uber. "We plan to have Uber driver's on each street corner". That quote sums up the Uber machine. They never mention profitable driver's or anything of the such.


Also Wal-Mart released last year their plan to change to a Cost Co way of business. Hire, train for couple months, expect more work out of each worker. And not hire so many since each new hire is expected to have a higher output. Cost Co has about 250k employees, maybe a bit more, but each employee does twice as much work as a Wally World employee. Also Wal has Express stores opening in certain areas like where I live to close one of the 3 Supers within 8 miles of each other. 

Uber reminds me of the old Wal-Mart alot in the way they want to have people make money. Have alot of driver's for little pay and be able to expedite the customer to a destination. You still will be just making it. But Uber can say see "we are helping the people make money while they help their neighbor get around". And  while saying it.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Greguzzi said:


> It's still wrong. Restricting freedom is ALWAYS wrong. It used to be the Republicans looking to restrict freedoms. That has all shifted. It is now the Democrats always wanting to force people to do everything their way. Few people can see this, but it is the truth.


Is restricting public access to plutonium always wrong?


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

Oscar Levant said:


> Is restricting public access to plutonium always wrong?


^^^
Don't worry about it.
If a plutonium powered satellite hits the atmosphere, it's instant lung cancer for everybody on that side of the planet.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Uber-Doober said:


> ^^^
> Don't worry about it.
> If a plutonium powered satellite hits the atmosphere, it's instant lung cancer for everybody on that side of the planet.


You're asking me not to worry about getting lung cancer?

Oookayy, anyone else want to say something that makes no sense?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

60000_TaxiFares said:


> People have health ins by their employer
> 
> Formerly, many were on Medicaid..... or medicare...
> 
> ...


Dental insurance in many cases only covers 50%. The most some policies pay out is $1500 in a year. If someone doesn't have $1200 for a root canal and crown they probably don't have $600 either. If it pays 80% they still have to come up with major cash if they need a lot of work done.

I have terrible teeth genes. I brush, floss etc. I'm anal about my dental hygiene. But I maxed out my dental insurance at my job for 6 years. It pays 80% up to $3000 a year. I couldn't get all the work done in one year because I couldn't have afforded $20,000. Oh, yeah, without the agreement that the insurance has with the dentists in their plan the price is HIGHER.

So I did 1 quadrant of my mouth each year then did what was left in year 5.

Before that I had no dental insurance. That's one reason my teeth were so bad in the FIRST place.

I don't know where you are but in Texas there are not a lot of free clinics unless you're practically destitute. I have always had jobs and never qualified for free anything, but didn't have money to pay for major dental work. Cavities got worse and turned into root canals and crowns. Or had to be pulled. I recently had to have one of my bridges removed when it broke and got 2 implants. That, WITH the insurance, cost me $1200 out of pocket. I have another bridge that is now failing. It will have to wait until next year. FYI crowns are only expected to last 5-10 years. Mine are all 10-14 years old. I have now 2 bridges, 2 implants, and 7 crowns. I've had 17 root canals. Every time I get my teeth cleaned they tell me I have no tartar and must floss religiously but I always have some cavity or issue.

My mom also has crappy genes. She lives in a small town. Her medicare qualifies her for a free clinic but the closest one is 50 miles away and she has to go through several visits and testing to have any major work done because of her heart issues. I have to take her. She lives 100 miles from me (not in the direction of the clinic).

I have lived in countries with universal health care and it is better to have it. Obama care has problems because its,still many insurance companies and plans and people are all paying different amounts. But it was done because that's all he could push through. REAL universal health care is not this messy. You just go to the damn doctor or dentist when you need to and don't deal with all the insurance. There's a,lot less red taoe, not more.

You people who think there are free clinics and insurance for everyone are mistaken. Its a crap shoot if you're poor. Why can an inmate get better medical and dental care than someone retired or someone working minimum wage? Or a child, for crying out loud?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Oscar Levant said:


> Is restricting public access to plutonium always wrong?


Well if radioactive materials weren't restricted then I'd have less paperwork to do to keep track of the radioactive isotopes we use in my research lab.

I coukd just chuck the waste in the trash then. Alternatively it would make it SO much easier to keep some and build a dirty bomb.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

Oscar Levant said:


> It seems unfair to the rich if you express it as you have expressed it, as their percentage paid of the total collected.
> 
> But, that's the wrong way to look at it.
> 
> ...


POST # 30/Oscar Levant: Although the
Readers of Your Reply
here are Feeling the Burn, no doubt
that YOU, SIR, are "Feeling The Bern"!

Bison Chortling.


----------



## UberPissed (Aug 13, 2014)

Can we get this discussion back to talking about dental implants.


----------



## MattStone (Jan 29, 2016)

Best thing to do and I know the drivers in New York, California, Washington DC, and San Francisco are going to hate this because they make money on the surges but in cities like mine all surge does is make people stop using Uber until it goes away. This kills all my fares for some time. Best thing to do is raise miles/min rate to something that is fair and can stand alone and get rid of the surges. I think we all would end up making far more money that way. PS I would quit but being a single father of 2 and going to college again this is the only thing I have time for, sucks


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Greguzzi said:


> And, yes, our health-insurance system was in need of some tweaking...


one of the single biggest understatements I've ever heard


----------



## dpv (Oct 12, 2015)

Driving for Uber is like driving for or below min. wage. It's only there to sustain you until after get something better, or to supplement your income. That's it!


----------



## El Janitor (Feb 22, 2016)

Seriously.................

Minimum wage is going up, so Uber drivers will be making less then minimum wage in the US soon  

I keep getting conflicting texts from Uber and I don't know what to do one says my rating is so low that I should take an Uber course to be a better Driver, Then I get one saying how I'm needed on the road to help with the surges, and how people need us to drive them somewhere. I think that if someones upset at Ubers rates and pricing then maybe they can:

1) Ask a friend for a ride.
2) Walk to the bus stop and wait.
3) Call a Taxi.
4) Work on getting a your own car, and driving yourself around.

Seriously if you don't have a car then you are at the mercy of public transportation. When and if the discussion about rates comes up, there's no argument. "Hey it will charge you whatever it costs on your card. It's done by time and distance and its all computerized, I have no say in what you are charged." If you have an issue with how much it costs, don't request a ride.

Your Uber, Lyft Alternatives when nobody can (or wants) to drive you somewhere:

The buses here are $1.75 one way until the end of the line or you get off the bus, or for a transfer. A monthly bus pass is $80.00. Go walk your tootsies to the bus stop and figure out your route to work, or community service (for you're 3rd DUI or whatever it is). Yes it takes much longer then Uber but its so much less expensive. You have clean well maintained vehicles with so many seats to choose from that I'm sure you will find the perfect seat for you. You can also make friends on the bus ( and believe me you will whether you want to or not.) Not to mention when the bus zips past you ( because its full) good luck reporting the driver for whatever bogus BS you feel like saying.

So next time you feel entitled, remember a cab ride that costs $100.00 is about $30.00 with Uber. A limo is $200 for the same distance, and in a limo you can complain and hear, " Yes Sir or Maaam"to whatever you say. 

So next time you feel that the rates suck, or you didn't get candy, or water; think about that warm cozy bus bench, at 9 PM or 5 AM waiting 30 minutes for your chariot of splendor to take you to your grand appointment oh mighty prince or princess. Make sure you demand that they roll out the red carpet for you when you arrive at your destination too


----------



## Uberduberdoo (Oct 22, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> That was why she hired UberBlack, not because she
> felt the need to ride in a more expensive car, she felt the need to do the right thing, she felt like if she hired an UberX,
> she was exploiting people.


What a bunch of crap! Why wouldn't she just tip the uber x driver .....someone is not telling the truth


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Uberduberdoo said:


> What a bunch of crap! Why wouldn't she just tip the uber x driver .....someone is not telling the truth


No, it makes sense, when the surge is about what an UberBlack is, why not ride in a more expensive, bigger car for the same price? 
I know I would, if I saw a surge increasing the price to the same, or more than what an UberBlack costs.


----------



## Uberduberdoo (Oct 22, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> not because she
> felt the need to ride in a more expensive car,





Oscar Levant said:


> why not ride in a more expensive, bigger car


 I wish someone would make up a better story.... as I said, a bunch of crap but it's getting thicker


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Uberduberdoo said:


> I wish someone would make up a better story.... as I said, a bunch of crap but it's getting thicker


I"m relaying what my rider told me, what also doesn't make sense is your concern over her story -- what difference does it make to you what reason she chose to hire an UberBlack?


----------



## Uberduberdoo (Oct 22, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> I"m relaying what my rider told me, what also doesn't make sense is your concern over her story -- what difference does it make to you what reason she chose to hire an UberBlack?


Not to concerned over her story, and it doesn't make a difference to me the reason she chose UberBlack. Though as it was spelled out, the story sounds like bull crap for obvious reasons. You posted it, I read and respond. That's what happens here. No big deal, her stated reason just don't make sense nor does the contridicting response I highlighted in my last post.


----------



## ColdRider (Oct 19, 2015)

Greguzzi said:


> LOL. Anyone who thinks the Democrats look out for the little guy when the Republicans only look out for evil corporations is a simpleton who lives in a cartoon fantasy of real life.


Something we agree on!


----------



## Tequila Jake (Jan 28, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> Tsk tsk...
> Romney told the world his tax rate was 15%. A secretary pays 35%. Thats' a lot more pain you'll feel if you are a secretary,
> and though the number is greater, it's a lot less if pain if you are rich as romney.


I call BS.

Do you really believe this? 35% is the marginal rate at a taxable income of $411,000. Does your secretary, or any secretary in the company you ever worked for, or any secretary in any company you know of, make this kind of money?



Oscar Levant said:


> I seem to remember it was a republican who took the nation off the gold standard.


Someone may have already pointed this out but it was FDR in 1933 that took the USA off the gold standard. In case you don't know any US history, FDR was a Democrat.


----------



## Tequila Jake (Jan 28, 2016)

I think Uber should be like all the other transportation apps and provide the rider with a cashless experience.

A cashless experience means a tipping option.


----------



## Lost In Translation (Sep 18, 2015)

NuberUber said:


> One thing I have learned since I started doing the Uber thang is that everything Uber does is driven by numbers and data.
> 
> Bottom line is maximize profits. This means getting drivers to drive for as little as possible and riders to ride at the highest rates they will be willing to. Uber is constantly running numbers on this to find the sweet spot. They constantly adjust and consistency is not ever in the mix. The main motivator is to grow and become as large as possible. There is a balance they are looking to find and many equations to evaluate in order to achieve this.


I am sorry but you do not know what you are talking about. Perhaps you, like so many other drivers, confuse cash flow with profitability.

Uber's goal is WORLDWIDE DOMINATION. Market Share. Growth. The destruction of the competition. Making Uber more attractive to passengers than owning a car and costing a few bucks more than the bus (see: UberPOOL if you don't yet have this in your market). They lower rates to increase ridership, rather than raise them to be profitable.

They are counting the days to the time they can fire all the drivers, but are failing to account for the cost of maintaining a huge fleet of driverless cars. Garages, oil, tires, cleaning, etc. All costs now paid by drivers will become Uber's costs.

And what makes Travis think that once he has pioneered ride sharing, Apple, Tesla, GM, of Google won't enter the market with their driverless car, that in many case they manufactured themselves. The Uber platform is not patentable. You can't steal their code or patents, but you can easily duplicate the functioning of their software. As numerous companies already do.

Uber is NOT PROFITABLE. Uber drivers are NOT PROFITABLE. Right now Uber spends huge sums of money in promotions, incentives, marketing, even big Las Vegas parties for 5,000 employees from around the world. Why should they care; it's not their money, but VC and Investor money.

It is estimated Uber loses $1 Billion a year in China. Another $1 Billion a year in India. They love to spend money. They purchased the Real Estate for their new HQ building in Oakland. Is Uber now in the Real Estate investment business too? Smart companies lease their offices.

Uber is hiring programmers to create their own Navigation app. So they won't rely so heavily on Google products. More money.

They are building their own data centers and installing owned hardware rather than continue to use Amazon Web Services (which hosts Netflix and Spotify for example). More money.

Meanwhile, their customer service is abysmal. The driver app runs insanely slow. Why should it take more than 2 seconds to calculate the fare and reconcile it across all the different screens of the driver app?

Their potential liability in the California Class Action suit is around $4 billion and growing. And unless Uber can buy off a jury, they will lose the case based on their own bad behavior.

The passengers all report that their app says I am many minutes away when I am actually sitting at the pickup point waiting for them.

Here's the bottom line: The economic model being used by Uber is unsustainable. The whole thing is a house of cards. The financial condition of the company is sketchy at best and there is little hope of their going public anytime soon. They may very soon need to employ drivers and pay benefits, without taxes, etc. And as employees, drivers are legally allowed to organize. (Here in San Francisco, the tax collector got a hold of the Uber Driver's Database. That means this data is now public. You don't think the Teamsters are going tgo legally obtain this data and organize? Or maybe the cab drivers will use this publicly available database to recruit (or harass) drivers.

In ten or twenty years, Uber will be a footnote to history. They will get credit for pioneering the concept but they will also no longer be in business.


----------



## Tequila Jake (Jan 28, 2016)

What can really really help Uber and Lyft is one simple thing:

The CTOs and CEOs of these companies need to get out of their San Francisco offices and buy a 2005 Corolla with 200,000 miles and drive the streets of different cities for a month. I'm sure they'll find that the experience in Phoenix or Houston is much different than San Francisco or New York City.

I agree with Lost in Translation that Uber's goal is market domination and eventually to eliminate drivers. However, I also think it's a pipe dream of theirs. As pointed out, the functionality of the app is easy to duplicate. 

However, driverless cars for rideshare is, IMO, a long way off. I think semi-automated cars will be on the market at not too unreasonable prices within about 5 years. However, it will be many more before autonomous cars can interact with passengers at anywhere near the same level a human can.

"Pick me up at the Hilton and take me to the airport" will be a fairly simple task. However, an address at an apartment complex requiring a gate code and then finding the right building and entrance to that building is not so simple. And then the passenger puts in their destination as Macy's - but take me to the employee entrance. Or take me to the mall entrance closest to the food court.

Or a driverless car that can assess you don't have a car seat for the baby.

Uber needs to plan for the future but first they need to solve the current problems -- the biggest of which is their poor relationship with the drivers.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Tequila Jake said:


> I call BS.
> 
> Do you really believe this? 35% is the marginal rate at a taxable income of $411,000. Does your secretary, or any secretary in the company you ever worked for, or any secretary in any company you know of, make this kind of money?


I did not write, or imply that. Simply put, you missed the point entirely.



> Someone may have already pointed this out but it was FDR in 1933 that took the USA off the gold standard. In case you don't know any US history, FDR was a Democrat.


FDR stopped foreign creditors from demanding gold instead of dollars and made gold ownership illegal compelling gold owners to turn in their gold for dollars, howevah......

the "standard" ( i.e, pegging the dollar to an controlled gold price ) was, well..........

The government held the $35 per ounce of gold price until August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon announced that the United States would no longer convert dollars to gold at a fixed value, thus *completely *abandoning the gold standard.


----------



## ricmut (Jun 22, 2015)

Wallyma said:


> I'd like to start a post with helpful ideas from other forum members. Concepts that Uber might consider to increase profits. Hopefully Uber browses these forums and might take in consideration some ideas we present here.
> 
> I feel that with the current pricing/procedures started in 2016 in Raleigh-Durham, issues have arised. Is this happening in other cities? I don't know.
> 
> ...


U want be profitable first you have to ride profile.anybody who is going for short rides no need waste time. Anybody going for a long ride wheres theres no business avoid em too.
Take the huges surge fare and call em before you live where you positioned. Mostly guys who surge on 3 bucks during the day they not going far.
As i said before uber has made it dirt cheap that most guys think they saving and question is why would you tip and you are saving money.
I dont help anybody carry their own luggage into my car only old pple anybody young open the trunk.anybody who asks me how uber is i tell em the truth is shitiest job ever.
I dont think uber will last that long instead of asking drivers how they feel, they email you and ask you submit you other rideshare paystubs for 10 bucks.they already know thats your average every hr.if you reply that damn email you will help solidify their notion everything is good.
I cant wait to stop this shitty jobs.i pity guys who were wooed to buy new cars coz they will realise we got played. 
My advice id u get another job quit uber.i hope that damn stupid ceo is reading this forum he will realise.i do believe if a third another company comea in and markets properly Pple will quite uber in mass.
Another option is form a union and the we be back to business


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

Uberduberdoo said:


> Not to concerned over her story, and it doesn't make a difference to me the reason she chose UberBlack. Though as it was spelled out, the story sounds like bull crap for obvious reasons. You posted it, I read and respond. That's what happens here. No big deal, her stated reason just don't make sense nor does the contridicting response I highlighted in my last post.


If the surge price on X is the same as a black why not go with a black? it makes perfect sense.


----------



## Uberduberdoo (Oct 22, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> If the surge price on X is the same as a black why not go with a black? it makes perfect sense.





Oscar Levant said:


> I had a rider ( I drive UberBlack ) and she asked me as an UberBlack driver, was I happy with my earnings?
> 
> I said they are acceptable, but because it's UberBlack, not UberX. That was why she hired UberBlack, not because she
> felt the need to ride in a more expensive car, she felt the need to do the right thing, she felt like if she hired an UberX,
> she was exploiting people. You know, if it walks like a duck.........(it's a frickin' duck ).


That's strange, I see nothing said in the story that indicates she was taking Black because X on surge is the same price. In fact no mention of surge what so ever. You must have left that part out of the story, that happens some times. What also happens sometimes, stories are a bunch of BS. "She felt the need to do the right thing" to avoid the feeling of exploitation of uber X people, she takes Black. Yeah, and Bill did not have sexual relations with that woman.  Like I said in my first, someone is not telling the truth


----------



## nash801 (Apr 17, 2016)

Lost in T: I love your intelligently written post.
What class action lawsuit?


----------



## El Janitor (Feb 22, 2016)

I like the idea of the 2 minute timer on Pool now. However when I'm driving Pool and I get a request for another pick up, I have to switch out of Waze to accept it and then hit "Navigate" and then Uber sends me;" Your last passenger asks you to not text and drive." Well....... um I have to get that ping. So it would be nice if we could cancel pool pings during our route and not get dinged for them, and also not get," your last passenger asks you to not text and drive." They were actually telling me to look up things on my browser for their dinner reservations during the ride and crap, don't tell me they asked me nicely to not text and drive! They were encouraging and demanding me to! It's not the PAX its the app shhhhh. Or there all out to get me in winch case....... Straitened paperclip should take care of that pesky server let me at it!


----------



## Slavic Riga (Jan 12, 2016)

dpv said:


> Driving for Uber is like driving for or below min. wage. It's only there to sustain you until after get something better, or to supplement your income. That's it!


Can you inform me how many better jobs are currently available & number of Uber drivers on the streets.
Making my statement clear " there are not many jobs".


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

*QUOTE="Lost In Translation, post: 1006515, member: 28052"I* am sorry but you do not know what you are talking about. Perhaps you, like so many other drivers, confuse cash flow with profitability.

Uber's goal is WORLDWIDE DOMINATION. Market Share. Growth. The destruction of the competition. Making Uber more attractive to passengers than owning a car and costing a few bucks more than the bus (see: UberPOOL if you don't yet have this in your market). They lower rates to increase ridership, rather than raise them to be profitable.

They are counting the days to the time they can fire all the drivers, but are failing to account for the cost of maintaining a huge fleet of driverless cars. Garages, oil, tires, cleaning, etc. All costs now paid by drivers will become Uber's costs.

*Except, it's actually cheaper to maintain electronics then it is maintaining human help, even if they're labeled as "IC". I forgot the exact numbers but I believe a bank teller is almost a dollar to what a machine would cost a bank, pennies for the atm. Right now uber isn't paying for health care, or benefits, or footing the majority of the taxes. But perhaps with the bubbling stories of uber drivers gone rogue or the pending lawsuits to try and make uber drivers labelled as employees (heck, or even the fact that they were able to get unemployment) - they were thinking ahead for once and trying to beat you all to the punch (before you can get w2 and unionized)*

And what makes Travis think that once he has pioneered ride sharing, Apple, Tesla, GM, of Google won't enter the market with their driverless car, that in many case they manufactured themselves. The Uber platform is not patentable. You can't steal their code or patents, but you can easily duplicate the functioning of their software. _As numerous companies already do.
_

*Actually that's true, but while they're replicated, they haven't surpassed uber as of yet. Lyft has been around the longest and how are they doing compared to uber?
*
Uber is NOT PROFITABLE. Uber drivers are NOT PROFITABLE. Right now Uber spends huge sums of money in promotions, incentives, marketing, even big Las Vegas parties for 5,000 employees from around the world. Why should they care; it's not their money, but VC and Investor money.

It is estimated Uber loses $1 Billion a year in China. Another $1 Billion a year in India. They love to spend money. They purchased the Real Estate for their new HQ building in Oakland. Is Uber now in the Real Estate investment business too? Smart companies lease their offices.

*Actually, smart companies will purchase it if the rates are low enough because it costs a hefty amount of $$$ to lease a property, in SF and bay area anyways. If you plan to stay around for the next few years and want your investors as well as the public to know indirectly, why not buy? Even if it's not about letting them know this, it's cheaper to buy in the long run if you have an abundance of cash flow currently because, I don't know, investor and vc money and all. I've talked to a commercial property landowner. Actually his family owns quite a few. They purchase a property for 1.8 mil (argued down from 2.2), and they can generate revenue of 200k a year because the current tenant is paying that.*

Uber is hiring programmers to create their own Navigation app. So they won't rely so heavily on Google products. More money.

They are building their own data centers and installing owned hardware rather than continue to use Amazon Web Services (which hosts Netflix and Spotify for example). More money.

*Positioning themselves for the long term - or just to look good to investors*

Meanwhile, their customer service is abysmal. The driver app runs insanely slow. Why should it take more than 2 seconds to calculate the fare and reconcile it across all the different screens of the driver app?

Their potential liability in the California Class Action suit is around $4 billion and growing. And unless Uber can buy off a jury, they will lose the case based on their own bad behavior.

*court cases can take years, beating the punch again. If they can get driverless cars out. Or maybe they'll be done and done by then *blows the stack of cards down**

The passengers all report that their app says I am many minutes away when I am actually sitting at the pickup point waiting for them.

Here's the bottom line: The economic model being used by Uber is unsustainable. The whole thing is a house of cards. The financial condition of the company is sketchy at best and there is little hope of their going public anytime soon. They may very soon need to employ drivers and pay benefits, without taxes, etc. And as employees, drivers are legally allowed to organize. (Here in San Francisco, the tax collector got a hold of the Uber Driver's Database. That means this data is now public. You don't think the Teamsters are going tgo legally obtain this data and organize? Or maybe the cab drivers will use this publicly available database to recruit (or harass) drivers.

*This I agree, but not for all the reasons you listed. It's simple as, with the cost to run uber, using a middle person (eg you human drivers) it won't be given how much the average American can afford to pay in this economy,
to take on a regular basis. Which is exactly why they'd rather own then lease (have equity then to just give money away). Develop their own apps and programs instead of paying someone else (again, cutting the middle man and thus the additional cost*).

In ten or twenty years, Uber will be a footnote to history. They will get credit for pioneering the concept but they will also no longer be in business.


----------

