# Khosrowshahi Sees Path to Profitability Despite Bumps in the Road



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/ubers-khosrowshahi-sees-path-profitability-185652974.html


----------



## 1.5xorbust (Nov 22, 2017)

What else is he going to say? “I see no path to profitability.”


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

Cold Fusion said:


> Khosrowshahi Sees Path to Profitability Despite Bumps in the Road


Because Dara sees more rate cuts to the drivers, and because the drivers will be the ones feeling the bumps.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Cold Fusion said:


> https://finance.yahoo.com/video/ubers-khosrowshahi-sees-path-profitability-185652974.html


His speech is ONLY smoke and mirrors, abracadabra type of thing.

100% he is already looking for an exit.

He failed the IPO he was hired for - IPO at a $120 billion valuation.

He has no solution to stop Ubers slowly and continuous sinking.

He has no effective solution to fix the relationship with all the Uber drivers, the core of Ubers product.

I am sure he already contacted Expedia to see if he can go back there.



Uber's Guber said:


> Because Dara sees more rate cuts to the drivers, and because the drivers will be the ones feeling the bumps.


The drivers could live without Uber, but Uber cannot exist without the drivers.


----------



## VanGuy (Feb 15, 2019)

Uber's Guber said:


> Because Dara sees more rate cuts to the drivers, and because the drivers will be the ones feeling the bumps.


Yup, even he admitted drivers were employees when he said employees would have to do more with less.


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> The drivers could live without Uber, but Uber cannot exist without the drivers.


And so far, Uber is winning on that front.
How many ants did you refer this week for your crumb referral fee?


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

1.5xorbust said:


> What else is he going to say?


_"I see no path to profitability."_
....I guess he can say that...
As long as his next words are

"_Effective immediately I tender my resignation" ???_


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

1.5xorbust said:


> What else is he going to say? "I see no path to profitability."


"I smoked a bowl and saw the road to profitability,

it was a yellow brick road that went past graffiti junktion and ended... guess where it ended?"

"Are you high?"

"So totally high, well anyway the yellow brick road ended in ORLANDO"

"The road to profitability ended in Orlando?"

"lower rates mean more money, so were going to give rides for free, make the drivers work for free... and siphon off 110% of all the tips the customers give"


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Uber's Guber said:


> And so far, Uber is winning on that front.
> How many ants did you refer this week for your crumb referral fee?


Where are you getting the info about more drivers signing up to drive? From the same drivers you constantly blame they have no clue about anything? Hahahaha...

This was 2017 data - "Only 4 percent of people who sign up to drive for the ride-hailing service are still driving a year later" - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/20/only-4-percent-of-uber-drivers-remain-after-a-year-says-report.html

This is 2018 info - "As of February 2018, 30% of Uber drivers stopped driving for the company every quarter. " - https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-lyft-ipo-drivers-20190309-story.html

And this is coming from a former Uber employee - "Driver churn (technical term for* drivers quitting) is an existential threat to Uber.* " - https://uberpeople.net/threads/i-used-to-work-at-uber-hq-on-the-driver-team-my-role-focused-on-"driver-success-"-ask-me-anything-reddit-com.328787/#post-5016371

So, what are you talking about? Do you see how everybody is ignoring your constant statements about more drivers signing up to drive? Why do you think you are being ignored? Because you are correct?


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> Where are you getting the info about more drivers signing up to drive? Do you see how everybody is ignoring your constant statements about more drivers signing up to drive? Why do you think you are being ignored?


I noticed you didn't ignore me. ? ?


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Uber's Guber said:


> I noticed you didn't ignore me. ? ?


Hahahaha.... You still fantasize about thousands and thousands of drivers signing up day after day, and when asked about sources, go evasive and elusive?

No reason to deflate. Could you please explain to us - *What is Uber winning, and on which front? *

More emoticons, maybe? Hahahaha...


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> Hahahaha.... You still fantasize about thousands and thousands of drivers signing up day after day, and when asked about sources, go evasive and elusive?
> 
> No reason to deflate. Could you please explain to us - *What is Uber winning, and on which front? *
> 
> More emoticons, maybe? Hahahaha...


You can check every city forum here and you will see driver over-saturation is a problem everywhere.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> You can check every city forum here and you will see driver over-saturation is a problem everywhere.


Hahahaha.... Who says that? The drivers? How much real info or real data analysis those drivers see? Unfortunately, some of them think the last Lyft rate change makes them more money, and that says it right there....

Edit - please watch this " knowledgeable driver" explaining other drivers about Lyft and Uber IPOs, on a popular rideshare youtube channel, and understand this is no joke. - 




This is tragic.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> Hahahaha.... Who says that? The drivers? How much real info or real data analysis those drivers see? Unfortunately, some of them think the last Lyft rate change makes them more money, and that says it right there....
> 
> Edit - please watch this " knowledgeable driver" explaining other drivers about Lyft and Uber IPOs, on a popular rideshare youtube channel, and understand this is no joke. -
> 
> ...


It's anecdotal but what else can we rely on to be accurate? Uber won't tell us how many new drivers they put on each day.

All I have to do is look at the rider app and see ants everywhere!!


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

goneubering said:


> It's anecdotal but what else can we rely on to be accurate? Uber won't tell us how many new drivers they put on each day.
> 
> All I have to do is look at the rider app and see ants everywhere!!


I was in the PHX hub this week.
At least 15 new ants signing up.
UberDude told me hundreds per week signing up.


----------



## ducktaleswoohoo (Aug 28, 2019)

goneubering said:


> It's anecdotal but what else can we rely on to be accurate? Uber won't tell us how many new drivers they put on each day.
> 
> All I have to do is look at the rider app and see ants everywhere!!


never heard of ghost cars huh lol i see the same movie on my app everyday same bat channel same bat time ghost car appears does the same loop, stages at places only an idiot would dissapear but i get a ping lol

they need to fool riders into requesting because 10+ minutes is too long for generaion idiot to wait for a chauffeur

tldr
dont trust everything you see, not all cars are actually there but yes there is no shortage of drivers 15 hours of the day



Wolfgang Faust said:


> I was in the PHX hub this week.
> At least 15 new ants signing up.
> UberDude told me hundreds per week signing up.


and only 4 out of each hundred will get to 100 rides


----------



## IthurstwhenIP (Jan 12, 2018)

Can confirm no drivers on the road or new driver sign ups last sixty days in LA


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> It's anecdotal but what else can we rely on to be accurate? Uber won't tell us how many new drivers they put on each day.
> 
> All I have to do is look at the rider app and see ants everywhere!!


I've linked media reports about it. The journalists have access to much more info than the drivers, and they also put the puzzle together from a third party point of view.

Who says the numbers of drivers signing up are exceeding the numbers of the drivers quitting, is simply either terribly frustrated with the state of the business (as a driver) or terribly disconnected from reality.

So in 2017, when the rates where almost double, rideshare had a 4% driver retaining rate over one year, and today when the rates are half from what they were 2 years ago, the drivers are signing up en masse? And the media is not writing about this?

Some drivers, not all of them, see only what they want to see, get together in a way or another, and create mythology and folklore.



Wolfgang Faust said:


> I was in the PHX hub this week.
> At least 15 new ants signing up.
> UberDude told me hundreds per week signing up.


Signing up is something, actively driving, burning personal time and understanding what is going on is something else.

Why somebody would trust wham an UberDude says? Ask the dude to show you last 3 months of active drivers data, compared to same data from last year, and see what he says or does.


----------



## nouberipo (Jul 24, 2018)

goneubering said:


> You can check every city forum here and you will see driver over-saturation is a problem everywhere.


Just because they took away the surges (there are still major surges but drivers don't see them but Uber charges paxoles for them) doesnt mean the riders are waiting much longer to get rides or being told rides aren't available at the time. Nobody can say there is actual over-saturation without empirical data which of course Uber is not going to release. You would think these numbers would be relevant information for the investors but since Uber works as a lawless organization I presume they don't disclose these numbers to investors event though it is a core variable impacting their investments.


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

nouberipo said:


> Just because they took away the surges (there are still major surges but drivers don't see them but Uber charges paxoles for them) doesnt mean the riders are waiting much longer to get rides or being told rides aren't available at the time. Nobody can say there is actual over-saturation without empirical data which of course Uber is not going to release. You would think these numbers would be relevant information for the investors but since Uber works as a lawless organization I presume they don't disclose these numbers to investors event though it is a core variable impacting their investments.


"_Uber works as a lawless organization"_

What does that make U? An accessory after the fact?
(a person who knowingly aids someone who has committed a crime)

Was Kalanick correct?: drivers take No responsibility for their decisions


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

I bet he's keeping that path secret just like Trump is keeping his healthcare plan secret until after the election and God forbid he wins he's gonna try to end the ACA.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> I've linked media reports about it. The journalists have access to much more info than the drivers, and they also put the puzzle together from a third party point of view.
> 
> Who says the numbers of drivers signing up are exceeding the numbers of the drivers quitting, is simply either terribly frustrated with the state of the business (as a driver) or terribly disconnected from reality.
> 
> ...


Please post your links proving Uber doesn't have enough drivers. My eyes and experience tell a much different story over the past four years.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Lee239 said:


> I bet he's keeping that path secret just like Trump is keeping his healthcare plan secret until after the election and God forbid he wins he's gonna try to end the ACA.


Good.
Obamacare sucks.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> Good.
> Obamacare sucks.
> View attachment 350525


You prefer healthcare only for the rich? I guess you never drove Uber or you were gaslighted by Fox News. We should have Universal Healthcare. every other first world country has it. ACA is not good but it's better than nothing and at least they are trying to insure all Americans. Why would you want the horrible system we have now where you can be charged for out of network for going to the wrong ER, or getting laid off and having to pay for Cobra and being worried about your health,.

Anyone who is for ending coverage for pre existing conditions is crazy or evil.

Remember it's not just you but your family members and friends lives that are at risk with the greed filled sick care system we have.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Lee239 said:


> You prefer healthcare only for the rich? I guess you never drove Uber or you were gaslighted by Fox News. We should have Universal Healthcare. every other first world country has it. ACA is not good but it's better than nothing and at least they are trying to insure all Americans. Why would you want the horrible system we have now where you can be charged for out of network for going to the wrong ER, or getting laid off and having to pay for Cobra and being worried about your health,.
> 
> Anyone who is for ending coverage for pre existing conditions is crazy or evil.
> 
> Remember it's not just you but your family members and friends lives that are at risk with the greed filled sick care system we have.


Millions of us had our policies cancelled, and we're either forced to buy crap coverage costing twice as much (with 10x deductibles) or were forced to pay a tax for not buying something.

Obamacare sucks.

Now, even obamacrats admit it.


----------



## KK2929 (Feb 9, 2017)

IthurstwhenIP said:


> Can confirm no drivers on the road or new driver sign ups last sixty days in LA


--------------------------
??? What ??? Maybe no new sigh ups from Castaic would be a closer to the truth statement.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> Please post your links proving Uber doesn't have enough drivers. My eyes and experience tell a much different story over the past four years.


See comment 9 on this thread.

And also

The rider's app only shows 8 cars available at any given time.
"Another reason is that the app only shows the *nearest eight cars* to avoid cluttering the screen. Also, to protect the safety of drivers, in some volatile situations, the app doesn't show the specific location of individual cars until the ride is requested."

"Zooming in on the area around _Mashable's_ downtown San Francisco office, for example, *shows eight nearby cars* while zooming in on my neighborhood 4 miles away also showed eight nearby drivers. But zoom out so both neighborhoods are showing on the map and you still *only see 8 cars*."

"A person familiar with Lyft, Uber's biggest competitor, described a similar process, saying the Lyft app will not always show the locations of every single driver as it could interfere with the user experience when there are many drivers online.Uber also said it will occasionally hide the locations of individual drivers until a ride is requested in cases when driver safety is a concern due to "volatile situations."

from - https://mashable.com/2015/07/29/uber-app-accuracy/

Here is a 2017 thread from the Advice section on UP(but this is no media and has no links attached) - https://uberpeople.net/threads/how-to-see-other-uber-drivers-locations-in-my-area.166405/


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> Millions of us had our policies cancelled, and we're either forced to buy crap coverage costing twice as much (with 10x deductibles) or were forced to pay a tax for not buying something.
> 
> Obamacare sucks.
> 
> Now, even obamacrats admit it.


So you are saying you want Sanders or Warren to win so we all can have Medicare for All and don't have to worry about not being insured and having to go bankrupt over medical bills,.I got it.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

1.5xorbust said:


> What else is he going to say? "I see no path to profitability."


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

KK2929 said:


> --------------------------
> ??? What ??? Maybe no new sigh ups from Castaic would be a closer to the truth statement.


He was joking. 



jocker12 said:


> See comment 9 on this thread.
> 
> And also
> 
> ...


Conment 9 is about driver churn which we all know is real but that doesn't confirm your contention about there being a shortage of Uber drivers. The opposite is true. All major US cities have a surplus of drivers. Where do you drive?

Seattle?


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Lee239 said:


> So you are saying you want Sanders or Warren to win so we all can have Medicare for All and don't have to worry about not being insured and having to go bankrupt over medical bills,.I got it.


So, you are saying 1+1=53,598
I got it.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> Conment 9 is about


 CNBC and LA Times also.

The 2017 30% of the drivers quitting every quarter LA Times analysis, is putting an initial estimated 2.000.000 rideshare ants at a 480.200 left after 4 quarters (12 months).

Estimated 2 million drivers in 2017 in the US coming from - "In 2017, Uber co-founder Garrett Camp piqued our interest by mentioning casually that Uber provides "flexible work options" to 2 million drivers."









Here is the math (from the bottom to the top) showing the numbers for every single 30% quarterly decrese









So, according to the math, after 12 months 75.99% of the drivers are not active on the platforms anymore, because 480.200 is 24.01% of/from the initial 2 million number.

Even if you consider these numbers estimates, *I would like to see sources with numbers* showing and claiming the drivers numbers are increasing and create a surplus, while rates are getting slashed.

Yes, the Reddit source is only confirming Uber's fears (with no numbers) as an answer to the user I was chatting to, that was claiming Uber is winning "on that front".

Edit - and please don't forget how the only way to see drivers available is with the riders app, and that app only shows maximum 8 cars at any given time, so even if you think there are more cars around you, the ONLY available data is limited to those 8 cars.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> CNBC and LA Times also.
> 
> The 2017 30% of the drivers quitting every quarter LA Times analysis, is putting an initial estimated 2.000.000 rideshare ants at a 480.200 left after 4 quarters (12 months).
> 
> ...


I started driving four years ago. At that time it would take 20 to 25 minutes to get an Uber at my house. Now it only takes 5 to 10 minutes. There's absolutely no question about more drivers in my area today.

Go to any major city on this forum and ask the long time drivers like me if there are more or less drivers in their market today. I think you already know the answer.


----------



## VanGuy (Feb 15, 2019)

There was some worry about having less than 8% of the population here become drivers when it becomes legal. Really? What percentage of the population needs to be a driver for them to be happy?


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

VanGuy said:


> There was some worry about having less than 8% of the population here become drivers when it becomes legal. Really? What percentage of the population needs to be a driver for them to be happy?


They want the maximum number of drivers they can grab so they can deliver the fastest possible response time to passengers. Unfortunately this strategy hurts the drivers.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> I started driving four years ago. At that time it would take 20 to 25 minutes to get an Uber at my house. Now it only takes 5 to 10 minutes. There's absolutely no question about more drivers in my area today.
> 
> Go to any major city on this forum and ask the long time drivers like me if there are more or less drivers in their market today. I think you already know the answer.


I understand what you are saying, but that is only a limited perception. That doesn't mean there are more drivers on the road, but only shows how eventually, today, the closest car is closer to your house as compared to four years ago.

I know and accept how instinctively most individuals would think your observation is based on a significantly increased number of available cars on the road, but please don't ignore how Uber and Lyft perfected their software to mislead the public and the local authorities.

They control the narrative and keep running their BS especially because they lead people into thinking something when the reality is exactly the opposite.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> I understand what you are saying, but that is only a limited perception. That doesn't mean there are more drivers on the road, but only shows how eventually, today, the closest car is closer to your house as compared to four years ago.
> 
> I know and accept how instinctively most individuals would think your observation is based on a significantly increased number of available cars on the road, but please don't ignore how Uber and Lyft perfected their software to mislead the public and the local authorities.
> 
> They control the narrative and keep running their BS especially because they lead people into thinking something when the reality is exactly the opposite.


In this rare case I think it's you who are ignoring reality. Ask around in the other city forums. It is what it is.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> They want the maximum number of drivers they can grab so they can deliver the fastest possible response time to passengers. Unfortunately this strategy hurts the drivers.


They want to block the rider to their first app choice. Every rider has to start somewhere, and based on their last experience or personal preference, they'll open Uber or Lyft. Based on their specific (cost) or momentarily (waiting time) values, the riders would make a specific choice.

The reason Uber and Lyft want as many drivers as possible on the road, is because, knowing riders have no brand loyalty, if they won't like what they'll see on the screen, they'll immediately switch to the competitor. And that is how Uber or Lyft want to make their riders stick with one platform or another.

Even if drivers run both apps simultaneously, riders first choice wins.



goneubering said:


> In this rare case I think it's you who are ignoring reality. Ask around in the other city forums. It is what it is.


I've posted media reports. So they are ignoring the reality as well?

Do you have any sources confirming driver surplus?


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> They want to block the rider to their first app choice. Every rider has to start somewhere, and based on their last experience or personal preference, they'll open Uber or Lyft. Based on their specific (cost) or momentarily (waiting time) values, the riders would make a specific choice.
> 
> The reason Uber and Lyft want as many drivers as possible on the road, is because, knowing riders have no brand loyalty, if they won't like what they'll see on the screen, they'll immediately switch to the competitor. And that is how Uber or Lyft want to make their riders stick with one platform or another.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure why you're clinging to this impossible point. Churn is clearly there and obvious to all. Show us one major US city where there's an actual shortage of Uber drivers. I guarantee it's not here in LA and I haven't heard rumors of any others. You've been on this forum long enough to know a major complaint of drivers is the ridiculous over-saturation.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> I'm not sure why you're clinging to this impossible point. Churn is clearly there and obvious to all. Show us one major US city where there's an actual shortage of Uber drivers. I guarantee it's not here in LA and I haven't heard rumors of any others. You've been on this forum long enough to know a major complaint of drivers is the ridiculous over-saturation.


I am not clinging, I am asking for sources to confirm what individual or small groups of drivers believe is happening regarding to the number of active drivers on both platforms.

IMO, as long as even the drivers believe there is a driver surplus, is no way Uber and/or Lyft would make any attempts to explain their investors about the real state of their affairs. Why? Because no matter where you go and ask the drivers, they'll continue to say the same thing - there is a surplus, even if they have no access to Uber or/and Lyft system data. And if this folklore sounds and looks true, the investors would not press for details, because growth is what they want, right? And this is how both corporations control what amount of information is being released to the public. What both platforms need is more confusion, not more clarity.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

????


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> ????


Oct 17th, 2018
*Uber puts value at $120 Billion, pre IPO*
https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-puts-value-at-120-billion-pre-ipo.289994/
Present market cap
$53.37 Billion

Dara - "I like where we are today"


----------



## VanGuy (Feb 15, 2019)

Less market cap means more money?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Bullshit about bullshit is still bullshit.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> I am not clinging, I am asking for sources to confirm what individual or small groups of drivers believe is happening regarding to the number of active drivers on both platforms.
> 
> IMO, as long as even the drivers believe there is a driver surplus, is no way Uber and/or Lyft would make any attempts to explain their investors about the real state of their affairs. Why? Because no matter where you go and ask the drivers, they'll continue to say the same thing - there is a surplus, even if they have no access to Uber or/and Lyft system data. And if this folklore sounds and looks true, the investors would not press for details, because growth is what they want, right? And this is how both corporations control what amount of information is being released to the public. What both platforms need is more confusion, not more clarity.


Drivers in this forum ARE your best source about saturation. Uber won't tell you anything. Investors don't care about driver over-saturation. They just want to hear about increasing annual revenue which Uber has so far been providing.

Of course investors are getting more and more concerned about Uber's inability to turn a profit as many drivers here have pointed out for years.

Are you a driver?



jocker12 said:


> Oct 17th, 2018
> *Uber puts value at $120 Billion, pre IPO*
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-puts-value-at-120-billion-pre-ipo.289994/
> Present market cap
> ...


What else can he say? He's got to clean up the huge mess TK left him while trying to not catastrophically disrupt the entire company.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> Drivers in this forum ARE your best source about saturation.


I am not looking for "the best" source, I am looking for another source, preferably a media source or an Uber corporate source.



goneubering said:


> Investors don't care about driver over-saturation.


Because, as Uber also tells them about the state of their self-driving cars (they are already here, right?), everybody thinks there is no problem, and in this case, the number of active drivers is increasing no matter what.



goneubering said:


> What else can he say?


Two options
1. Better say nothing

2. Ideally, say the truth, because some of the money invested in the IPO is coming from pension funds or retirement savings.

By saying he likes where Uber is today, he is encouraging other naive people to possibly invest in Uber or/and trying to calm down any alarmed actual investors. Nobody asked him if he likes what he sees today.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> I am not looking for "the best" source, I am looking for another source, preferably a media source or an Uber corporate source.
> 
> Because, as Uber also tells them about the state of their self-driving cars (they are already here, right?), everybody thinks there is no problem, and in this case, the number of active drivers is increasing no matter what.
> 
> ...


Truth isn't popular today. Dara talks kind of like a politician. I believe lots of investors are going to get hurt as Uber stock declines further while the truth becomes glaringly obvious.

I'm going to go way out on a limb now and say maybe Dara doesn't even know the truth about SDCs. He most likely relies on his staff to keep him informed and they still believe that Intel report about a massive $7 Trillion potential market.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Saturation is GREAT from a company perspective. How many times do I have to tell you Uberlyft is all about 100% utilization of pings?


----------



## nouberipo (Jul 24, 2018)

Cold Fusion said:


> https://finance.yahoo.com/video/ubers-khosrowshahi-sees-path-profitability-185652974.html


says the liar to investors


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> You still fantasize about thousands and thousands of drivers signing up day after day, and when asked about sources, go evasive and elusive?


Here's your source*:*


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Uber's Guber said:


> Here's your source*:*


Actually, that is your source trying to convince me your source is real. Hahahaha... Logic could be quite confusing.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

A.

What does it cost for uber/lyft to have 700 cars that each get 10 trips per day that get paid $4.00 per trip?

$28,000


B.

What does it cost for uber/lyft to have 2800 cars that each get 2.5 trips per day that get paid $4.00 per trip?

$28,000




Which scenario has happier customers?

Option B.

Which scenario has happier drivers?

They don't care.


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

1.5xorbust said:


> What else is he going to say? "I see no path to profitability."


Isn't that what it said, pretty much verbatim, in the IPO filing? What has changed since then?


----------



## mrpjfresh (Aug 16, 2016)

goneubering said:


> I'm not sure why you're clinging to this impossible point. Churn is clearly there and obvious to all. Show us one major US city where there's an actual shortage of Uber drivers. I guarantee it's not here in LA and I haven't heard rumors of any others. You've been on this forum long enough to know a major complaint of drivers is the ridiculous over-saturation.


I think the thing is there will never be a shortage of drivers because once it drops low enough and drivers get very busy and things like surge kick in more frequently, it can actually be alright. Yea, the rates still suck but it is doable with enough surge, tips, etc. Then, inevitably, more crabs jump into the barrel to join the party and pull everyone else down until enough drivers have had enough and this awful cycle repeats ad infinitum. I've been around long enough to experience many of these "waves" and they are always generally the same just with new ants (I still miss you lady with plastic rear window who thought stops signs and red lights were optional). It will only be through legislative caps or idiotic gambits like 30 cents a mile this cycle will be broken.



1.5xorbust said:


> What else is he going to say? "I see no path to profitability."


I like to imagine Dara's exit similar to the pilots in that scene from _Temple of Doom_ where Indy goes to the cockpit to find the pilots gone, fuel empty and the plane headed straight for a mountain. Unfortunately, Uber is more likely to be a great stain on Dara and his business legacy and he probably wonders why (aside from the obscene amount of money) he even took on the challenge of steering this disaster of a company.


----------



## 1.5xorbust (Nov 22, 2017)

mrpjfresh said:


> I think the thing is there will never be a shortage of drivers because once it drops low enough and drivers get very busy and things like surge kick in more frequently, it can actually be alright. Yea, the rates still suck but it is doable with enough surge, tips, etc. Then, inevitably, more crabs jump into the barrel to join the party and pull everyone else down until enough drivers have had enough and this awful cycle repeats ad infinitum. I've been around long enough to experience many of these "waves" and they are always generally the same just with new ants (I still miss you lady with plastic rear window who thought stops signs and red lights were optional). It will only be through legislative caps or idiotic gambits like 30 cents a mile this cycle will be broken.
> 
> I like to imagine Dara's exit similar to the pilots in that scene from _Temple of Doom_ where Indy goes to the cockpit to find the pilots gone, fuel empty and the plane headed straight for a mountain. Unfortunately, Uber is more likely to be a great stain on Dara and his business legacy and he probably wonders why (aside from the obscene amount of money) he even took on the challenge of steering this disaster of a company.


I'm sure he has nightmares regarding his exit strategy.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

1.5xorbust said:


> I'm sure he has nightmares regarding his exit strategy.


I think Dara has no exit strategy. I think the board will oust him by the end of 2020 based on abhorrent stock performance.


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> I am not clinging, I am asking for sources to confirm what individual or small groups of drivers believe is happening regarding to the number of active drivers on both platforms.
> 
> IMO, as long as even the drivers believe there is a driver surplus, is no way Uber and/or Lyft would make any attempts to explain their investors about the real state of their affairs. Why? Because no matter where you go and ask the drivers, they'll continue to say the same thing - there is a surplus, even if they have no access to Uber or/and Lyft system data. And if this folklore sounds and looks true, the investors would not press for details, because growth is what they want, right? And this is how both corporations control what amount of information is being released to the public. What both platforms need is more confusion, not more clarity.


Maybe I can help.

Q1
Add 100 drivers
Q2
30% of Q1 adds quit leaving 70
Add 100 more =170
Q3
30% quit leaving 119
Add 100 more = 219
Q4
30% quit leaving 153
Add 100 more = 253

While you lose 30% of drivers quarterly, adding a static 100 drivers quarterly shows you can drastically increase driver availability.

Combine this with top line revenue up 70% and the near elimination of all driver promos.

You cannot grow revenues this fast off such a large base unless the market for drivers and pax remains fluid.

Like any business, veterans can poison the company water cooler, so Uber has embraced churn.



Diamondraider said:


> Maybe I can help.
> 
> Q1
> Add 100 drivers
> ...


-----
The odd thing about using a static growth figure is that eventually the driver growth caps. In this case, the numbers stop at 333 drivers. 
If you lose 30%, or 100, and replenish at 100, you stay frozen at 333.
For every quarter you possibly exceeded 100 additions, your driver cap will increase modestly.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Diamondraider said:


> Maybe I can help.
> 
> Q1
> Add 100 drivers
> ...


There are 2 distinct categories - signing up drivers and active drivers on each platform.

Coming from a former Uber employee - "5% of drivers quit driving after their first trip. 20% of drivers quit before their 5th trip. I forget the rest of the distribution and how it drops off from there, but ultimately *99% of the people who have ever started driving with Uber have stopped driving with Uber.* "

When you start doing any calculations you need to consider the already EXISTING pool of drivers. That is the number losing 30% each quarter. "In 2017, Uber co-founder Garrett Camp piqued our interest by mentioning casually that Uber provides "flexible work options" to *2 million drivers*."

What you are doing is arranging the numbers around to fit the folklore.

Please read this
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-problem-with-believing-what-were-told-11567224060?mod=rsswn
*"Combine human cognitive weakness with social networks, and you have a recipe for chaos." - *where "human cognitive weakness" is an individual's perception out on the road (in our case) and the social network is this forum.

Edit - What Dara is telling the investors is about the signing up numbers, when what they need to be looking at is the real active numbers. The signing up numbers are completely irrelevant.


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> There are 2 distinct categories - signing up drivers and active drivers on each platform.
> 
> Coming from a former Uber employee - "5% of drivers quit driving after their first trip. 20% of drivers quit before their 5th trip. I forget the rest of the distribution and how it drops off from there, but ultimately *99% of the people who have ever started driving with Uber have stopped driving with Uber.* "
> 
> ...


No. 
I actually did the math and I started at zero drivers to help simpleton like you follow along.

Every quarter my numbers reduce the entire driver population by 30%.

Buy a calculator at staples.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Diamondraider said:


> No.
> I actually did the math and I started at zero drivers to help simpleton like you follow along.
> 
> Every quarter my numbers reduce the entire driver population by 30%.
> ...


Hahaha.... Do you have a media source to support your theory?

The 30% decrease didn't start at Uber day one (zero drivers), my friend. It started after Uber began to slash the rates, and at that time they've already had an EXISTING pool of drivers.


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

Diamondraider said:


> No.
> I actually did the math and I started at zero drivers to help simpleton like you follow along.
> 
> Every quarter my numbers reduce the entire driver population by 30%.
> ...


--
For giggles, I will add 2 million drivers to the starting point. What that will show you is eventually the driver population will bottom out in direct correlation to your quarterly driver additions. In this case, somewhere around 400 drivers in a few decades.

What you are missing is that revenue grew substantially, and rideshare is nearly positive on an ebitda basis.

This happens by increasing pricing, increasing volume, and driving out incremental and variable costs.

My earning metrics are trending horrifically over the last 3 years, and and Uber's metrics are trending inversely.. not hard to figure out all this.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Diamondraider said:


> --
> For giggles, I will add 2 million drivers to the starting point. What that will show you is eventually the driver population will bottom out in direct correlation to your quarterly driver additions. In this case, somewhere around 400 drivers in a few decades.
> 
> What you are missing is that revenue grew substantially, and rideshare is nearly positive on an ebitda basis.
> ...


Hahahaha.... Again, do you have preferably a media source or an Uber corporate data source confirming that markets are oversaturated with active drivers?

Edit - Here is your estimated 2017 active drivers decrease with no quarterly signing up drivers addition (that should be around 1.5 millions for the entire year only to keep the numbers even).


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> Hahahaha.... Again, do you have preferably a media source or an Uber corporate data source confirming that markets are oversaturated with active drivers?
> 
> Edit - Here is your estimated 2017 active drivers decrease with no quarterly signing up drivers addition (that should be around 1.5 millions for the entire year only to keep the numbers even).
> 
> View attachment 351265


#gfy


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Diamondraider said:


> #gfy


No mathematics, no source.... you're not helping. Actually, you're hurting yourself.


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> No mathematics, no source.... you're not helping. Actually, you're hurting yourself.


Where is your media source on that dB?


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Uber's ability to hire new suckers is entirely why they can have such a huge churn rate.

A company can actually have over 100% annual turnover.

All it means is that their workers statistically will last less than 1 year. That's not so unreasonable now is it?

Firm A has 100 positions, they do telemarketing for _Cheese of the month club. _

This theoretical company needs to hire 12 people per month in order to maintain the number of workers that they need.

It's entirely possible to find 12 new suckers every month.

If you do the math, that's 12% turnover per month, 36% turnover per month, or _*144%*_ turnover per year.

But it's just 12 new hires PER MONTH.

Assuming it's an absolute poop fest of horrible working conditions, no air conditioning, and ridiculous quotas...

That's just 3 people who they need to hire per week.

And if they happen to have too many?

They can cut hours for everyone until the numbers go down under 100 again.

And if they don't have enough?

Hire more idiots...

So really... 36% turnover? Not as impossible as it seems. In fact it seems right on the money.


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> This was 2017 data - "Only 4 percent of people who sign up to drive for the ride-hailing service are still driving a year later" - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/20/only-4-percent-of-uber-drivers-remain-after-a-year-says-report.html


Please stop using this misleading and incorrect headline as fact.
That 4% was arrived by adding the sign-ups that were never eligible to drive, let alone "still driving a year later"

As fast as things are moving, using 2017 data, is not really relevant anymore.
I've seen online surveys and mentions of Uber claims, and a realistic range is somewhere around 25%-50% retention rate.
There is no base line to the term "active" driver.
"Active" means taking at least 4 rides in a month for one, while another means at least 1 ride in 6 months.



jocker12 said:


> Edit - Here is your estimated 2017 active drivers decrease with no quarterly signing up drivers addition (that should be around 1.5 millions for the entire year only to keep the numbers even).
> 
> View attachment 351265


It doesn't work that way.
By not adding driver signups, the results are inaccurate.

(I couldn't read the LA times article. Blocked)
Assuming losing 30% of drivers each quarter is true, to maintain 2 million drivers, they would need to signup 857,143 drivers per quarter. (70% of 2,857,143 = 2,000,000)


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Diamondraider said:


> Where is your media source on that dB?


I am sorry, you probably didn't have the time to get through the entire thread. You can go at comment #9 on this thread. I've posted a CNBC link and an LA Times link. The third link is coming from a Reddit AMA that was done by a former Uber employee and I've linked it to this forum a few months ago. Of course, that is not a media or a corporate source - However, it's not coming from the drivers but from an individual that had access to the real data and is not making a statement based on street mythology.

The calculation is mine (based on LA Times information), and is symbolic of how big the decrease is, showing how incredibly significant (over 1.5 million) the number of signing up drivers should be during a year only to keep the numbers even.

One more thing. In more than one instances, I've had brief email communication with the LA Times (previously at Recode.com) journalist, Johanna Bhuiyan on two topics - this one and possible self-driving cars New York 2018 deployment. In both cases, she actually had more information than it was published.



Taxi2Uber said:


> There is no base line to the term "active" driver.


What is the difference *on the Uber platform*, between you driving every other day, and your brother that drove 18 rides in January, still has the app installed, all the documents still valid, still getting the emails from Uber about his weekly upcoming "promotions", but is not intending to drive anymore?



Taxi2Uber said:


> Please stop using this misleading and incorrect headline as fact.
> That 4% was arrived by adding the sign-ups that were never eligible to drive, let alone "still driving a year later"


See above - "I've had brief email communication with the LA Times (previously at Recode.com) journalist, Johanna Bhuiyan on two topics - this one and possible self-driving cars New York 2018 deployment. In both cases, she actually had more information than it was published."



Taxi2Uber said:


> By not adding driver signups, the results are inaccurate.


Yes. The higher the initial number, the higher the 30% is. With four quarters constant decrease, the ending difference between the starting number and the ending number (again, considering these are largely generic values) it stays almost the same (with a 2 million starting value)

Here is the calculation for 1000 sign-ups per day, every day, - equals 90.000 new sign-ups every 3 months nationwide










Estimated remaining 618.170 drivers out of 2 million after 12 months.

I am playing with numbers in your theory's favor, because again, the important and real number is about the active drivers, not the sign-ups.


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Uber's ability to hire new suckers is entirely why they can have such a huge churn rate.
> 
> A company can actually have over 100% annual turnover.
> 
> ...


Exactly



jocker12 said:


> I am sorry, you probably didn't have the time to get through the entire thread. You can go at comment #9 on this thread. I've posted a CNBC link and an LA Times link. The third link is coming from a Reddit AMA that was done by a former Uber employee and I've linked it to this forum a few months ago. Of course, that is not a media or a corporate source - However, it's not coming from the drivers but from an individual that had access to the real data and is not making a statement based on street mythology.
> 
> The calculation is mine (based on LA Times information), and is symbolic of how big the decrease is, showing how incredibly significant (over 1.5 million) the number of signing up drivers should be during a year only to keep the numbers even.
> 
> ...


Great.

I agree with your math.

In your example, Uber will never run below 90k drivers.

If they are are profitable at that level, they do not need more.

This is due to a concept called price elasticity.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Diamondraider said:


> Exactly


There is an error in that scenario.

Have you seen this line? - "If you do the math, that's 12% turnover per month, 36% turnover per month,"

Also, if there are 100 positions, and "Assuming it's an absolute poop fest of horrible working conditions, no air conditioning, and ridiculous quotas... ", that company needs 100 happy employees at any given time, because that is the premise of this estimate. In those conditions, no company would be able to maintain their 100 number, and more people would quit.

The secret is *employee satisfaction*, and no scenario, this one or Uber's one, provides that. In Uber's case is worse, because the rates are being periodically slashed.

This scenario fluctuates employees number between 100 and 88, but the condition is - "the number of workers that they need " is *ALWAYS 100 - every day.* With fewer people their productivity is affected.

"That's just 3 people who they need to hire per week." - This statement is based on the assumption that, for some reason, given the harsh conditions, the rest of the employees are not reacting, but that is not the case. If the company loses 30 employees in one week, all this theory goes bananas.

"And if they happen to have too many? " - this statement contradicts the previous statement - "Assuming it's an absolute poop fest of horrible working conditions, no air conditioning, and ridiculous quotas.. "

"And if they don't have enough? " - again the answer is ignoring the reality - "Hire more idiots... ".

The reality which is - "Assuming it's an *absolute poop fest of horrible working conditions*, no air conditioning, and ridiculous quotas... "



Diamondraider said:


> In your example, Uber will never run below 90k drivers.


Yes but that still puts the final number (after 12 months) at an estimated minus 1.381.830 drivers.

That is not showing saturation by any means.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Uber has never had trouble recruiting ants.
Somehow the 96% annual churn rate doesn't affect them.
There's always a moron willing to sleep at the airport for $100 per day.


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> What is the difference *on the Uber platform*, between you driving every other day, and your brother that drove 18 rides in January, still has the app installed, all the documents still valid, still getting the emails from Uber about his weekly upcoming "promotions", but is not intending to drive anymore?


I think you completely missed the point, since your response made no sense.
There is no base line of the term "active" driver among the various surveys, studies, analyses.
Comparing apples to oranges.



jocker12 said:


> See above - "I've had brief email communication with the LA Times (previously at Recode.com) journalist, Johanna Bhuiyan on two topics - this one and possible self-driving cars New York 2018 deployment. In both cases, she actually had more information than it was published."


Here again, you make no sense.
You quoted the cnbc part of my quote then spoke about LA times communications. :confusion:
What's going on with you jocker12. I'm worried about you.



jocker12 said:


> Yes. The higher the initial number, the higher the 30% is. With four quarters constant decrease, the ending difference between the starting number and the ending number (again, considering these are largely generic values) it stays almost the same (with a 2 million starting value)
> 
> Here is the calculation for 1000 sign-ups per day, every day, - equals 90.000 new sign-ups every 3 months nationwide
> 
> ...


First of all, that 2 million you keep referring to is a world wide number, not nationwide.
Second, 1000 signups per day? LOL That's cute.
Third, signups are not important? A large portion of those signups get included in the active driver pool, and therefore should be factored in.

2017, world wide Uber drivers numbered ~2 million
2018, world wide Uber drivers numbered ~3 million

Obviously the signups are outnumbering the "quitters".
Active drivers are not doubling in numbers like the early days, but still growing. 
It may flatten or go the other way eventually, but not yet.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Taxi2Uber said:


> among the various surveys, studies, analyses.


What surveys, studies and/or analyses?


Taxi2Uber said:


> You quoted the cnbc part of my quote then spoke about LA times communications.


I've quoted your reference to a media source. I agree it looks a little confusing considering the substance of your statement. I am not discarding the cnbc source at all, but all my calculations are based on LA Times findings for the prior year to the date that article was published (published in 2018, my calculation for 2017).


Taxi2Uber said:


> I'm worried about you.


Hahahaha... I would like to see legit sources, not drivers opinion. As much as I understand where their perception is coming from, that is only highly subjective mythology. Put that in a discussion forum and you create the "religion" of the oversaturated markets.


Taxi2Uber said:


> Second, 1000 signups per day?


It is funny because I step in and display how the numbers look like, while (and you've probably missed it) I say - again, considering *these are largely generic values*. Find the sources, get the numbers from the sources, do the math and prove me wrong.


Taxi2Uber said:


> Obviously the signups are *outnumbering the "quitters*".
> Active drivers are not doubling in numbers like the early days, but *still growing*.
> It may flatten or go the other way eventually, but not yet.


I keep asking users that are making this statement to provide media or Uber corporate data (even if is analyzed by a journalist, a media outlet or an academic entity) to support this fiction.

Why fiction? Because media is reporting the opposite.


TwoFiddyMile said:


> Uber has never had trouble recruiting ants.


Depending on what "trouble" is.
If recruiting is done only for recruiting sake, then there is no trouble.
If recruiting is targeting market oversaturation, then rideshare (Uber and Lyft) is in big trouble.


TwoFiddyMile said:


> There's always a moron willing to sleep at the airport for $100 per day.


XL drivers?


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

jocker12 said:


> This scenario fluctuates employees number between 100 and 88, but the condition is - "the number of workers that they need " is *ALWAYS 100 - every day.* With fewer people their productivity is affected.


Well..

They could _*over hire*_ and slash hours keeping 100 on shift at any time, while paying the same amount (because they are all part timers). Then as people quit they give more hours to people who want more hours. (but everyone would still be under the full time threshold)

Therefore they would be better off keeping the number at 110-115 employees on the books to keep up with people quitting. If they have as high of turnover as my example would be, there's very little difference between having 110 people on the books as 100.

HEY that's what uber does with over saturation... too many drivers to keep up with the churn (further increasing churn but at any one time they have enough.

You keep thinking the world is full of ethical companies,

If a company has 144% annual turnover they definitively have ethical issues.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> HEY that's what uber does with over saturation


This is folklore. There is no over-saturation. Drivers like to think there is because the surrounding signals at a random given time make them believe the active drivers' number keeps going up, but none of them has access to actual Uber system data to confirm this. It is the other way around.

The reality is that the fewer drivers on a market, the more chances they understand that market better. And from there they start adapting better to cover the existing quality demand. On top of that, the online discussion forums help them do that, while they could exchange information more effectively and test it more rapidly.

This is good and bad for the drivers, because it hurts their competition (which is the OTHER drivers on the same platform) and it also hurts Uber, because the real-time Uber system requires drivers to cover any kind of demand, while drivers only target quality demand.


Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> You keep thinking the world is full of ethical companies,


By contrary, applying critical thinking I encourage everybody to question every single word companies present as "information".
Even if they show you their data, they'll never show you their entire data.


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> I've quoted your reference to a media source. I agree it looks a little confusing considering the substance of your statement. I am not discarding the cnbc source at all, but all my calculations are based on LA Times findings for the prior year to the date that article was published (published in 2018, my calculation for 2017).


You have gone off the rails on this one. Let's start over.
I was referring to the cnbc report alone. 
Nothing to do with the LA times report. I didn't read it and couldn't, as it was blocked.
Now I'm saying the cnbc headline is misleading and incorrect because in order to be "still driving" you have to have driven in the first place.
(The cnbc report was based on The Information article. I didn't see how their numbers were attained)
But, according to their numbers, only 20 out of 100 signups are even eligible to become a driver/partner.
Of those 20, only 12 drive at least 1 ride, while the remaining 8 never drive a single ride!
Now, out of those 12 serious enough to take at least 1 ride, 3 remain past a year.
That is a far cry from what is now a catchphrase here on UP, saying "96% quit before a year" or the like, which is not an accurate representation.



jocker12 said:


> It is funny because I step in and display how the numbers look like, while (and you've probably missed it) I say - again, considering *these are largely generic values*. Find the sources, get the numbers from the sources, do the math and prove me wrong.
> 
> I keep asking users that are making this statement to provide media or Uber corporate data (even if is analyzed by a journalist, a media outlet or an academic entity) to support this fiction.
> 
> Why fiction? Because media is reporting the opposite.


What is it, that you want proven?
Uber worldwide active driver pool is growing. Is that a dispute?
by 2015 - 160,000 drivers
by 2017 - 1.5 million
by 2018 - 2 million
by 2019 - 3 million

Are you saying the media is reporting drivers "quitting" faster than new signups?
And the media is fact?


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

When you are at the top of your game with workers and riders and you are losing $57 million a day or $5 to $6 billion a quarter how do you see a road to profitability? It's not like they are even close to breaking even and not making a profit they are losing more than ever.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

jocker12 said:


> This is folklore. There is no over-saturation. Drivers like to think there is because the surrounding signals at a random given time make them believe the active drivers' number keeps going up, but none of them has access to actual Uber system data to confirm this. It is the other way around.
> 
> The reality is that the fewer drivers on a market, the more chances they understand that market better. And from there they start adapting better to cover the existing quality demand. On top of that, the online discussion forums help them do that, while they could exchange information more effectively and test it more rapidly.
> 
> ...


Over saturation?

I'm going to define over saturation as getting more fares in a taxi than you can get off uberX in the same market.

At universal studios Orlando I can load faster at closing time than the uber drivers can.

At magic kingdom at closing time i can load faster in a taxi than the uberX drivers can.

Running dispatch calls *with the exception of out by University of Central Florida* i can get fares faster (and get more of them) in a taxi than the uberX drivers can.

Guess who does more loads out of universal studios and disney?

What's the threshold for calling it oversaturation?

_Is fewer fares per driver while getting more fares in total than your competitors not over saturation?_


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Taxi2Uber said:


> But, according to their numbers, only 20 out of 100 signups are even eligible to become a driver/partner.
> Of those 20, only 12 drive at least 1 ride, while the remaining 8 never drive a single ride!
> Now, out of those 12 serious enough to take at least 1 ride, 3 remain past a year.


You'll need to use the specific quotation from the article, because the numbers make no sense.



Taxi2Uber said:


> What is it, that you want proven?


In order to support the "oversaturated markets" and "continuously growing pool of drivers" statements, please find "a media source or Uber corporate data (even if is analyzed by a journalist, a media outlet or an academic entity) source to support this fiction. "



Taxi2Uber said:


> Uber worldwide active driver pool is growing.


Please don't go in circles


Taxi2Uber said:


> First of all, that 2 million you keep referring to is a world wide number, not nationwide.


If you find a source with a percentage increase, you can show me numbers. But first, you need the source that mentions the increase.



Taxi2Uber said:


> by 2015 - 160,000 drivers
> by 2017 - 1.5 million
> by 2018 - 2 million
> by 2019 - 3 million


Source?



Taxi2Uber said:


> And the media is fact?


The question is if the drivers with their limited perception and no access to real Uber system data, could be a reliable source.
Media outlets, when they've looked into this matter, the only thing they found was large percentages of drivers quitting, not actively driving on the platforms. I am sure IF drivers numbers increase would have been the case, the journalists would've published that. But the numbers, as they found out, are dropping.

I sincerely wish you luck, because I am good at finding things online, and I couldn't find anything saying the markets are oversaturated with drivers. It is only drivers on discussion forums creating this illusion.




Taxi2Uber said:


> Assuming losing 30% of drivers each quarter is true, to maintain 2 million drivers, they would need to signup 857,143 drivers per quarter. (70% of 2,857,143 = 2,000,000


This a very correct calculation about a very unlikely possibility. But you gave me the impression that you don't like my "largely generic values", so I am waiting for you to create a new premise. From a source you can share here, on the forum.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> You'll need to use the specific quotation from the article, because the numbers make no sense.
> 
> In order to support the "oversaturated markets" and "continuously growing pool of drivers" statements, please find "a media source or Uber corporate data (even if is analyzed by a journalist, a media outlet or an academic entity) source to support this fiction. "
> 
> ...


So your unproven theory is we drivers don't know our local markets?


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> So your unproven theory is we drivers don't know our local markets?


From my comment #75 above

"The reality is that *the fewer drivers on a market*, the more chances they understand that market better. And from there they start adapting better to cover the existing quality demand. On top of that, the online discussion forums help them do that, while they could exchange information more effectively and test it more rapidly.

This is good and bad for the drivers, because it hurts their competition (which is the OTHER drivers on the same platform/market) and it also hurts Uber, because the real-time Uber system requires drivers to cover any kind of demand, while drivers only target quality demand. "


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> So really... 36% turnover?


The magic of this turnover is it doesn't cost them anything to "train".

Basically what I heard was, yes we had some bleeds on our books but we got rid of the legal that cost the bleed, we have a huge partnership and going forward there's growth as it has 75% in return not factoring the legal fees/payout/etc.

Uber does so much more then just provide an app that connects driver to riders but even then it's making a killing on the spread.

Does it need to be run better? Yes.

Maybe then they can stop with the low rate drops ?


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Maybe then they can stop with the low rate drops ?


First, they need to accept the reality as it is (stock dropping and ATG's gigantic failure) and close their self driving unit (ATG). Once they remove that distraction, pretty much any kind of management would be able to understand what their only strength is.

At that is the drivers.

If they remain stubborn and continue to hit the self driving "Chinese wall" with their heads, thinking they'll be able to break through, they'll go bankrupt under the weight of their own stupidity.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> By contrary, applying critical thinking I encourage everybody to question every single word companies present as "information".
> Even if they show you their data, they'll never show you their entire data.


In this case you're the one who's not applying critical thinking. Do you really believe Uber's generating more and more revenue from less and less drivers?

Also I noticed you didn't answer my previous question. Are you a driver?


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> In this case you're the one who's not applying critical thinking. Do you really believe Uber's generating more and more revenue from less and less drivers?


They are generating more revenue from increasing the percentages they'll keep from every single ride.

They also get more revenue from additional services they provide on their platform like Jump (dockless scooters and bikes), UberEats (Dara keeps promoting this), and probably very little from UberFreight.

Recently I've seen they want to initiate a Uber Visa credit card - "The new *Uber Visa* is the latest cashback card, and it's getting a lot of well-earned attention."
One of their strongest targets is Libra cryptocurrency though.



goneubering said:


> Are you a driver?


A lot less lately.


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

You say you are " good at finding things online", yet you keep asking for quotes and sources from articles YOU posted.
Everything I've posted was found in under 30 minutes using Google.



jocker12 said:


> You'll need to use the specific quotation from the article, because the numbers make no sense.


Agreed. Yet you, and others, hang their hat on that number.
(And actually "The Information" article corrected the 4% number in the article to 3%)
"The Information" printed it. CNBC reported it. And most all of you ran with it, misleading and incorrect as it might be.

Certainly you could easily do it yourself, but I'll post it nonetheless:
_"The data breaks down this way: Of all the drivers who sign up for an Uber account in the U.S., only 20% of them get their vehicles passed by the company's physical inspection and a verification that the drivers have car insurance.

Of that group, 60% proceed to drive at least a single trip for Uber. But of that cohort, only about 25% are still drivers a year later. That's a measly 3% retention rate when starting at the top of the "funnel.""_

Since it deals with percentages, it goes as follows:
only 20 out of 100 pass Uber requirements to drive.
Of that 20, 60%, or 12 proceed to drive at least 1 Uber trip.
Of that 'cohort' [12] 25%, or 3, still drive a year later.
So it is concluded that out of 100 original signups (top of the funnel), only 3 (3%) make up the "measly retention rate"
I did not find any source the article used as to how the numbers were attained, but apparently it's "FACT", right?


jocker12 said:


> In order to support the "oversaturated markets" and "continuously growing pool of drivers" statements, please find "a media source or Uber corporate data (even if is analyzed by a journalist, a media outlet or an academic entity) source to support this fiction. "


How do you prove something as subjective as oversaturation?
What is the threshold?
If you were averaging 3 rides an hour, and now it's 2, is that because of oversaturation?
If you were averaging $20/hr and now $15/hr, is that because of oversaturation?
There is no singular reason these might occur.
Maybe ridership is down due to increased rider price.
Maybe drivers are out longer trying due to paycuts, to reach their daily goal.
Or maybe, there are in fact, simply more drivers on the road.

Anecdotally, a driver's honey hole is at a hotel, and there has always been maybe 2 other drivers there, and it never took more than 15 minutes to get a ping. Now there are minimum 15 drivers waiting at this hotel, and it takes at least an hour to get a ping, it would not be wrong from this driver's perspective, to call that situation a representation of saturation by comparison.


jocker12 said:


> Please don't go in circles


:confusion:


jocker12 said:


> The question is if the drivers with their limited perception and no access to real Uber system data, could be a reliable source.
> Media outlets, when they've looked into this matter, the only thing they found was large percentages of drivers quitting, not actively driving on the platforms. I am sure IF drivers numbers increase would have been the case, the journalists would've published that. But the numbers, as they found out, are dropping.
> 
> I sincerely wish you luck, because I am good at finding things online, and I couldn't find anything saying the markets are oversaturated with drivers. It is only drivers on discussion forums creating this illusion.


This is puzzling. Since a journalist's article was about drivers quitting, with no mention of overall growth in numbers, you assume by omission, that the driver pool is not growing?
You can still have large numbers of drivers quitting, and still have overall growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all your internet searching, have you found the Hall-Krueger-2015 report.
_"From a base of near zero in mid-2012, more than 160,000 drivers actively
partnered with Uber at the end of 2014 in the United States, and the rate of growth was rising
throughout this period"
Also stated: More than half of drivers stayed active after the first year.








_

In the Q4 of 2014, a total of $656.8 million was paid out to over 160,000 active Uber drivers in the U.S.

This number grew to 1.5 million drivers by 2017 with over $3 billion payments issued out already.
Source was Mark MacGann twitter feed, no longer active. Reported by MuchNeeded.com-Uber stats.

And I'll stop here with Uber co-founder Garrett Camp article of 6/17, mentioning 2 million drivers.

There are rival Uber forums that can't get mentioned here, that have articles and sources saying the same as above, if you want to pursue this.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> First, they need to accept the reality as it is (stock dropping and ATG's gigantic failure) and close their self driving unit (ATG). Once they remove that distraction, pretty much any kind of management would be able to understand what their only strength is.
> 
> At that is the drivers.
> 
> If they remain stubborn and continue to hit the self driving "Chinese wall" with their heads, thinking they'll be able to break through, they'll go bankrupt under the weight of their own stupidity.


Their SDC division is "valued" at an absurd level in the Billions. They won't shut it down in my opinion because they must maintain their fantasy as long as possible. They even sucked Toyota in as an investor.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Taxi2Uber said:


> Since it deals with percentages, it goes as follows:
> only 20 out of 100 pass Uber requirements to drive.
> Of that 20, 60%, or 12 proceed to drive at least 1 Uber trip.
> Of that 'cohort' [12] 25%, or 3, still drive a year later.


In my comment #58, addressing a different user, I wrote - "When you start doing any calculations you need to consider the already EXISTING pool of drivers." That is the number we need to start with and it's losing 30% in the first quarter. - see below my comment to your 6th quotation.
Here (and correct me if I am wrong), you're only working with the adding numbers.



Taxi2Uber said:


> How do you prove something as subjective as oversaturation?
> What is the threshold?
> If you were averaging 3 rides an hour, and now it's 2, is that because of oversaturation?
> If you were averaging $20/hr and now $15/hr, is that because of oversaturation?
> ...


"Maybe" is about what one thinks, and there is no problem with thinking/imagining. The problem is when, instead of using "in my opinion" when expressing thoughts, one expresses his hypothesis and the relatively frustrating audience hears "I know", or the audience takes it as such. This is the reason I am asking for sources, because people can imagine things, they can repeat things they've seen or heard but never from a legit source, or they can repeat something they've found published by somebody that has a name (assumes responsibility), as text, audio file or video file.



Taxi2Uber said:


> Now there are minimum 15 drivers waiting at this hotel, and it takes at least an hour to get a ping, it would not be wrong from this driver's perspective, to call that situation a representation of saturation by comparison.


But it won't be correct either.



Taxi2Uber said:


> Since a journalist's article was about drivers quitting, with no mention of overall growth in numbers,


The articles are looking into drivers numbers. It is not about dropping numbers per se, it is about the numbers. Again, I am sure if they would've found increasing percentages, every single journalist would've published them. But all they've found were significant numbers of quitting drivers.



Taxi2Uber said:


> You can still have large numbers of drivers quitting, and still have overall growth.


When drivers are satisfied with the business, which is neither Uber's nor Lyft's case.



Taxi2Uber said:


> In all your internet searching, have you found the Hall-Krueger-2015 report.


This graph shows how when the numbers started dropping, there was a significant pool of existing drivers (I was telling you about above). What you ignore here is the rates in 2015 and prior, when driver satisfaction (other than the missing tipping option) was not even comparable with what happened in the last 2 years.



Taxi2Uber said:


> Reported by MuchNeeded.com-Uber stats.


Actually, this blog post (no author name) gives a 2018 US drivers number









When you said the worldwide numbers are not relevant, I stepped back inviting you to help me with the US numbers. Of course the "oversaturated markets", as far as UP users are concerned, are about the US. So that is why I asked you to avoid going in circles.

Here we have a 2017 number, which is losing 30% (according to LA TIMES) every quarter. Do you want to do the math using your signup estimates?



Taxi2Uber said:


> (Forgive my crude graph. I stopped at 2017. 2018+ continues upward off the chart)


Where is this graph coming from?



Taxi2Uber said:


> that can't get mentioned here


Why not? I was serious when I asked you about articles or Uber system data. Hit me.



goneubering said:


> Their SDC division is "valued" at an absurd level in the Billions. They won't shut it down in my opinion because they must maintain their fantasy as long as possible. They even sucked Toyota in as an investor.


Yes. And then, the investors need to ask the board members to gather their children together, take them to ATG headquarters, split them into groups of 5, put them inside "self driving" Volvo's, set the destination to a 30 to 40-mile distance from their initial location, remove any safety monitors, and release the robots into the wild.

That is reality.

If the stock keeps dropping and they refuse to put their children inside those "trillion $$$" money-making self driving Volvos, the investors would have the chance to understand what AI really is.


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> In my comment #58, addressing a different user, I wrote - "When you start doing any calculations you need to consider the already EXISTING pool of drivers." That is the number we need to start with and it's losing 30% in the first quarter. - see below my comment to your 6th quotation.
> Here (and correct me if I am wrong), you're only working with the adding numbers.


I'm working with the numbers in the article YOU presented and relying on for you arguement


jocker12 said:


> But it won't be correct either.


Because you can't prove an opinion.
Overall, there is growth, which can and has been proven, but you won't accept it.


jocker12 said:


> The articles are looking into drivers numbers. It is not about dropping numbers per se, it is about the numbers. Again, I am sure if they would've found increasing percentages, every single journalist would've published them. But all they've found were significant numbers of quitting drivers.


Sensationalism.


jocker12 said:


> This graph shows how when the numbers started dropping, there was a significant pool of existing drivers (I was telling you about above). What you ignore here is the rates in 2015 and prior, when driver satisfaction (other than the missing tipping option) was not even comparable with what happened in the last 2 years.


Haha. I'm not ignoring anything. You wanted prove of growth. You got one.


jocker12 said:


> When you said the worldwide numbers are not relevant, I stepped back inviting you to help me with the US numbers. Of course the "oversaturated markets", as far as UP users are concerned, are about the US. So that is why I asked you to avoid going in circles.
> 
> Here we have a 2017 number, which is losing 30% (according to LA TIMES) every quarter. Do you want to do the math using your signup estimates?


Worldwide numbers are not relevant? Who said that? Where is this coming from?


jocker12 said:


> Where is this graph coming from?


Apologies. I removed it as I realized I misread a number. Fixed.
(Adding more current numbers to existing graph from 2015, crudely, but to scale)
Looks like steady growth to me, despite the quitters.











jocker12 said:


> Hit me.


I am, repeatedly, over the head, but it's just not sinking in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional finds (again, all easily found using Google search. Looks like you're just trolling me so I'll do the work for you.):

(Uber: globally 3 million drivers)
_"Still, Lyft has steadily grown while Uber has been mired in scandals. Lyft launched in dozens of new cities across the US over the last year and is now as ubiquitous as Uber in some markets. Lyft has 1.4 million drivers in the US and Toronto, while Uber has 750,000 drivers in the US. Uber, which has 2.25 million drivers outside of the US, is in 78 countries so it gave many more rides than Lyft overall, coming in with 4 billion trips in 2017."_
Cnet (source)

(Clear growth even factoring in the loss of drivers)
_"In addition, by 2018, Uber had roughly 750,000 drivers in the US - meaning it was not doubling every year. If numbers had doubled every year since 2015, Uber should have had 2.6 million drivers in the US alone by 2018. *Driver churn and availability clearly has an impact on the number of drivers in the US, but the growth is clearly still there.*

It's more likely Uber has around 1.5-2.5 million drivers in the US, since one quarter to one half quit after one year. However, this could still mean Uber has millions of drivers in the US alone."_
RSG (source. UP blocks rival RS URLs)


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

Cold Fusion said:


> https://finance.yahoo.com/video/ubers-khosrowshahi-sees-path-profitability-185652974.html


----------



## B - uberlyftdriver (Jun 6, 2017)

He must have used the Ubercalcualtor...

you know, the same one they used to pay us less in order to make more:confusion:


----------



## OldBay (Apr 1, 2019)

How did this grubby loser get the Uber gig?

Free money, all he has to do is pretend he's doing something.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Taxi2Uber said:


> I'm working with the numbers in the article YOU presented and relying on for you arguement


I am afraid you are working with TheInformation numbers, while I am using LA Times numbers.



Taxi2Uber said:


> Overall, there is growth, which can and has been proven, but you won't accept it.


It is not because I won't accept it. Is because there is none.

As long as Uber is still paying drivers to recruit other drivers while Uber cannot make a profit because they're continuously losing money, you know they don't have enough drivers, period.











Taxi2Uber said:


> Sensationalism.


This is a simplistic way to look at media reports. The only reason I'll question a media report for is if that report it'll be favorable to Uber. And significant quitting driver numbers, is not a favorable story to Uber.

Let me show you how media picks on driver "gossip" *once that gossip has elements showing the story could be true*.

Back in May this year, media reported about possible driver "surge manipulation" done in order to maximize drivers incentives.
https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/...ers-working-manipulate-surge-pricing-63121007
That was a story initiated by drivers behaviour mentioned for multiple times on drivers forums. So media went out, checked that information, and reported it.

Unfortunately, when they went out to check for drivers numbers, the only information they've found was how those numbers were and are dropping, not increasing.



Taxi2Uber said:


> You wanted prove of growth. You got one.


That is poof of growth when the rates were 3 to 4 times higher than the rates they have today. Of course, there was growth before 2017 (Uber's infamous year).

The question you want to find an answer to is - Is that true today? And here is where you get frustrated.....


Taxi2Uber said:


> I am, repeatedly, over the head, but it's just not sinking in.


....and you chose to answer with a soft insult. Really? I've wished you luck finding sources, no insults whatsoever, because I want you to show some value here. If soft insults are your value, then you already showed your limits. So please, show us how the drivers markets kept getting (or stayed) oversaturated from 2017 to 2019, while both rideshare companies kept slashing rates to already ridiculous low levels.



Taxi2Uber said:


> Worldwide numbers are not relevant? Who said that? Where is this coming from?


In your comment #72, YOU said


Taxi2Uber said:


> First of all, that 2 million you keep referring to is a world wide number, not nationwide.


Correct?
And after that, you started showing (and referring to) worldwide numbers.



Taxi2Uber said:


> (Adding more current numbers to existing graph from 2015, crudely, but to scale)
> Looks like steady growth to me, despite the quitters.


So that is your opinion, not coming from a source that had the chance to take a look at Uber's system data? Correct?



Taxi2Uber said:


> Cnet (source)


Your CNET source mention's Lyft growth, not Lyft driver numbers growth. These are very different things. Also says "_Uber has 750,000 drivers in the US_ ", but the numbers drivers are referring to when claiming "today oversaturated markets" are about constantly ON LINE drivers, what I call _active drivers_. CNET only throws a number out there without any context

To give you an example about *the importance of context*, in the story about drivers forcing surging for better fares, the drivers doing that are the active drivers, the ones that are online at the same time at the same place, and go offline for minutes in order to create driver shortage. It s not all the drivers that have the app installed on their smartphones. By looking at the Uber system, you can see how many they are, and where is that happening. On line status, geolocation and timing create the context.



Taxi2Uber said:


> but the growth is clearly still there.


While that RDG blog post is full of links (and that is good) this statement has none. I would say IN THEORY, as long as 99,9% of the adults in the US have a driver license, the possibility of growth is still there. But that possibility is simply eliminated (as I've mentioned in my previous comment) by the fact that* no driver is currently satisfied with their earnings on either platform*. Everybody knows this, and social media helped the public understand what the regular consumers never considered before, so people became a lot more reluctant to Uber and Lyft corporate promises, in comparison to what happened before 2017.



Taxi2Uber said:


> It's more likely Uber has around 1.5-2.5 million drivers in the US


Here is a question you need to ask yourself when reading statements made by that RDG blog post - If that author is so specific in using so many links for a lot of his statements, why this line (posted in bold characters) has no link under it?

Note - Normally, a blog is not considered a "source" as long as I can go on wordpress, build a blog in 10 minutes or less, write how the Earth is flat, and post it online. What you need is media, academic or Uber corporate system data.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> *no driver is currently satisfied with their earnings on either platform*. Everybody knows this,
> 
> and social media helped the public understand what the regular consumers never considered before, so people became a lot more reluctant to Uber and Lyft corporate promises, in comparison to what happened before 2017.
> 
> ...


That's your opinion which is probably greatly influenced to a large extent by this highly negative forum.

The only way you could KNOW all drivers are unhappy would be if you talked with all of them.

Why do you continue to hang on to this unprovable point? The only people who know the truth are people in Uber management and they aren't talking. I will end by stating it's obvious there are more drivers in the LA/OC market by the greatly reduced amount of surge we see. I suspect you see the same reduction in your market which is why you're driving less.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> That's your opinion which is probably greatly influenced to a large extent by this highly negative forum.


Uber drivers AB5 support in California is the result of driver dissatisfaction and has nothing to do with this forum.



goneubering said:


> Why do you continue to hang on to this unprovable point?


I am not hanging on to anything.
The user that started this (see comment #5 on this thread) is continuously in indiscriminately blaming drivers for their stupidity, so the ants have no clue whatsoever, and when it fits his narrative says they are correct about "oversaturated markets".

I've called him up (see comment #9 on this thread) to explain this contradiction, and he evaporated. Hahahahaha....

Now we got graphs (see above) looking like what Kalakick was showing Uber investors in 2014 and 2015, with a vector line getting through the roof (what those idiots were loving to see) while he was burning their millions subsidizing rides and selling a monumental lie.

Only because he created a false context nobody stood up to question and investigate.


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> ...


It's funny you accuse posters of believing in this "fiction" of growing numbers, yet you continue to believe otherwise, despite all the evidence pointing the other way. Clearly you want to believe what you want to believe.

Again. YOU referenced the cnbc report and presented it as fact (since cnbc is a legit media source right? LMAO)
I correctly interpreted the numbers. You didn't believe me and asked for proof. I gave it.
Then you don't acknowledge it, and say I'M the one using the report. LOL

Yes, Uber is still paying for recruiting drivers, but the amount has been declining. (I'm sure this is an example of one increasing)
This shows they don't need as many drivers, because,wait for it..............the driver pool is growing despite the quitters.

Again, all numbers I presented are from many media sources and Uber data, and not my "opinion"
Frankly, I don't have an "opinion". I clearly see growth. 
By the numbers, anecdotally, and by "boots on the ground" living it.

Blogs may not be a "media source", but they direct you to legit data and sources.
But you only WANT to believe media sources that agree with you, and are blinded to what it is going on outside of LA times and CNBC.

(Aside: I have read your articles in the past, especially the SDC, and "liked" them. But after this exchange, I have change my view of you. In my eyes, you have lost all credibility, and it seems you have some agenda. I know I will no longer be interested in your future postings. I wish you luck in finding THE truth, and not just YOUR truth.)


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> Uber drivers AB5 support in California is the result of driver dissatisfaction and has nothing to do with this forum.
> 
> I am not hanging on to anything.
> The user that started this (see comment #5 on this thread) is continuously in indiscriminately blaming drivers for their stupidity, so the ants have no clue whatsoever, and when it fits his narrative says they are correct about "oversaturated markets".
> ...


A quick Google search is all you need.

https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-doubles-its-drivers-in-2015-2015-10
Last month, the ride-hailing company had 327,000 active drivers on the road in the U.S., more than doubling the 160,000 that gave rides in December 2014. Uber defines "active" as a driver that does at least four rides a month, so these aren't just people who have downloaded the app and walked away from it.

One more.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/hedgescompany.com/blog/2018/10/number-of-licensed-drivers-usa/amp/
*How many Uber drivers are there? How many Uber drivers are in the US?*
If you need to know how many Uber drivers there are, then according to CNNthere were 750,000 Uber drivers in the US in 2017. That's an increase from 327,000 Uber drivers in the US in 2015. According to Uber there are 3 million Uber drivers in 2018, around the world in 65 countries.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Taxi2Uber said:


> I clearly see growth.


You see growth. People that are not driving for any rideshare platform and try to understand what is going on, see a significantly *increasing decline* in active drivers numbers.



Taxi2Uber said:


> presented it as fact


Presented as sources to debunk mythology and folklore. Only corporate Uber data systems and records contain the facts.



Taxi2Uber said:


> This shows they don't need as many drivers


So Uber pays drivers to recruit more drivers because Uber doesn't need more drivers?
So, if you have your own company, let's say, and you start offering your current employees money (negatively affecting your profits) to recruit more employees is because you don't need more employees?



Taxi2Uber said:


> Blogs may not be a "media source", but they direct you to legit data and sources.


Look above and read again my words about RDG - "While that RDG blog post is full of links (and that is good) "
Now, two of the statements that blog makes about the number of drivers - "_but the growth is clearly still there_ " and "_It's more likely Uber has around 1.5-2.5 million drivers in the US_ " have no links to direct the readers to any sources. I've asked you why do you think that is? (Note - as you can see under those 2 RDG statements *I was able to link the RDG blog*, so you saying "RSG (source. UP blocks rival RS URLs) " - at the end of your #89 comment, was also incorrect).



Taxi2Uber said:


> But you only WANT to believe media sources that agree with you, and are blinded to what it is going on outside of LA times and CNBC.


I've asked you for sources to back up the folklore and I am blinded for other sources than LA Times or CNBC/The Information? The "driver oversaturated" claim's problem is that there are NO sources to report increasing active rideshare drivers *percentages* to support it. And you tend to make a big drama out of it, when there is no drama.



Taxi2Uber said:


> I have read your articles in the past, especially the SDC, and "liked" them. But after this exchange, I have change my view of you.


So, if you've changed your view on me, despite your previous belief that SDC's are a scam (I assume as long as that is what my posts on that topic are all about), because "my credibility" is lost and you think I have an agenda, now you suddenly believe the self-driving cars stupidity is coming to fruition as we "speak"? Well, I tell you the same thing I tell SDC's enthusiasts when they surrender their logic and their basic common sense to continuous useless SDC technological failures - Unfortunately "The truth is a bitter pill to swallow", my friend.

Also


Taxi2Uber said:


> I have read your articles in the past


Those were not and are not my articles. I was only posting links on this forum, or entire copy-paste articles (to make sure they remain available for free access after some of them get paywalled by their owners).

Heads up and don't feel disappointed. As the forum rules educate its users and encourage them to confront the idea not the member, I am happy you understood how unproductive useless sarcasm is.



goneubering said:


> more than doubling the 160,000 that gave rides in December 2014.


I want to make sure, so, *do you want to go on with this?* First, you asked me


goneubering said:


> Why do you continue to hang on to this unprovable point?


Second, I have no problem addressing your comment, and I am going to take you to the 2014, 2015 driver numbers relevance, corroborated with the value of the rates before 2017 - see my comments above


jocker12 said:


> That is poof of growth when the rates were 3 to 4 times higher than the rates they have today. Of course, there was growth before 2017 (Uber's infamous year).


and


jocker12 said:


> What you ignore here is the rates in 2015 and prior, when driver satisfaction (other than the missing tipping option) was not even comparable with what happened in the last 2 years.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> You see growth. People that are not driving for any rideshare platform and try to understand what is going on, see a significantly *increasing decline* in active drivers numbers.
> 
> Presented as sources to debunk mythology and folklore. Only corporate Uber data systems and records contain the facts.
> 
> ...


Please state exactly what point you're arguing about. There clearly has been explosive growth in the number of Uber drivers in the US over the past few years. If you don't believe that then you're simply not paying attention.

And if you really believe there's a shortage of Uber drivers please name one major US city where this problem exists. I would like you to name ten cities since you seem to think this is a widespread problem but I'll settle for one.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

goneubering said:


> Please state exactly what point you're arguing about.


Here is comment #4 on this thread


jocker12 said:


> The drivers could live without Uber, but Uber cannot exist without the drivers.


Here is comment #5 on this thread


Uber's Guber said:


> And so far, Uber is winning on that front.
> How many ants did you refer this week for your crumb referral fee?


Here is a comment made by the same UP user in Nov last year - https://uberpeople.net/threads/the-case-of-imaginary-atlanta-quest-11-25.296517/#post-4510528









Here is my comment #9 on this thread


jocker12 said:


> Where are you getting the info about more drivers signing up to drive? From the same drivers you constantly blame they have no clue about anything? Hahahaha...


What is my question? (because I am not arguing here. Anybody can believe whatever they want.)

If all the drivers are so stupid (and crazy) as individuals and as a group (because there is no distinction made, and actually the Nov comment displays a self inclusion) how it is possible that the same drivers, with NO access to Uber's or Lyft's system data, with NO media confirmation or any academic study done on the matter, to DISCOVER how there is not only a driver oversaturation market (while the rates keep getting slashed) but also there is a continuously increasing driver sign up and driver activity (again, while the rates are brutally getting slashed by both rideshare platforms) around the US?

Applying simple logic, if there is a driver oversaturation then the drivers are NOT stupid, and if the drivers are stupid then there is no oversaturation. Would you agree with that?

Oh, by the way.... The same user, says (here https://uberpeople.net/threads/long-pings-for-uber-eats.217126/post-3656724)








but obviously he likes to flip flop around this a lot and say whatever, whenever.

You do realize these questions are for him because he is making those statements, not for you, correct?

The possible driver oversaturation or possible driver regression numbers is not even the issue (on this thread about a different topic).

The issue is flip-flopping.


----------



## iheartuber (Oct 31, 2015)

Persians are fantastic liars


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

iheartuber said:


> Persians are fantastic liars


They make you think they drink enriched uranium but what they have it's only goat piss.


----------

