# Uber is losing money.



## Chip Dawg

Uber Loses at Least $1.2 Billion in First Half of 2016.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...es-at-least-1-2-billion-in-first-half-of-2016


----------



## WestSubDriver

Interesting to note is that despite fear about how long driver subsidies in the US can last Uber may be breakeven in the US. They earlier reported that they were profitable in the US during the first quarter and this article mentions a $100 million loss during the second quarter.

The vast majority of these losses are due to Uber doling out a billion dollars to drivers in China to compete with Didi.


----------



## andaas

Also keep in mind that Uber only lost $100 million in the US, "*before* interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization". Which if you think about it, would amount to the fare total after a ride "*before*" Uber takes their 20-25% cut and SRF.

In other words, Uber lost more than $100 million in the US.


----------



## Gung-Ho

Lose a billion here and a billion there. I can see this ending well for them. 

What is the payoff here for uber. What product launch or innovation do they have to hit the market that will turn huge profits for them? NONE. They run at a loss now, there is nothing that's going to change to make that different in the future. Stop driver incentives? Say good bye to the drivers. Raise the rates? Say good bye to the riders.


----------



## LA Cabbie

http://gizmodo.com/why-uber-is-losing-money-faster-than-any-tech-company-e-1785736918

"Eventually, Uber will get rid of the drivers and turn a huge profit."

"What is surprising, however, is that the biggest cost to the company is the fee it pays out to drivers."

The success and longevity of this company rests on firing the drivers.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

LA Cabbie said:


> http://gizmodo.com/why-uber-is-losing-money-faster-than-any-tech-company-e-1785736918 The success and longevity of this company rests on firing the drivers.


"Uber is losing money faster than any technology company ever, and it's largely because of an essential component to the company's operations: the drivers."


----------



## ExpendableAsset

I would really like to see this driverless car expense model these knuckleheads have concocted. I honestly do not believe it will be cheaper for Uber at all. Uber will have to own and maintain this massive fleet, and I do not think Travis is going to be down in his flip flops and swim trunks washing cars and doing oil changes at one of the thousands of shops (which will cost money) which Uber will have either buy or pay to operate in order to maintain the cars. I am truly skeptic.


----------



## LA Cabbie

Bad, Bad Uber drivers. Causing such a noble and good hearted company to lose money. You should be paying Uber for the privilege and honor of hauling around trash er I mean passengers. I say we should dedicate at least one day a week whereby Uber drivers donate ALL their earnings to Grandmaster er I mean comrade er I mean Dear Führer Travis.


----------



## LA Cabbie

ExpendableAsset said:


> I would really like to see this driverless car expense model these knuckleheads have concocted. I honestly do not believe it will be cheaper for Uber at all. Uber will have to own and maintain this massive fleet, and I do not think Travis is going to be down in his flip flops and swim trunks washing cars and doing oil changes at one of the thousands of shops (which will cost money) which Uber will have either buy or pay to operate in order to maintain the cars. I am truly skeptic.


Another poster did the math. Say Uber charges $1 a mile and has a 50/50 partnership say with Volvo. Uber provides the software and Volvo the hardware. Say that these Robocars can generate $500 per 24 hour day. $250 for Uber to run their ops and $250 for Volvo to run theirs. I think that if the caretaker of Robocar can put in their pockets net profits of $50 a day, which is better than a rental car company, this would be profitable. Of course, this is best case scenario in a perfect world.


----------



## ExpendableAsset

LA Cabbie said:


> Another poster did the math. Say Uber charges $1 a mile and has a 50/50 partnership say with Volvo. Uber provides the software and Volvo the hardware. Say that these Robocars can generate $500 per 24 hour day. $250 for Uber to run their ops and $250 for Volvo to run theirs. I think that if the caretaker of Robocar can put in their pockets net profits of $50 a day, which is better than a rental car company, this would be profitable. Of course, this is best case scenario in a perfect world.


Excellent observations, especially on the 24 hour robotic workday. Of course, more work is more miles and damage. Your last sentence is my favorite however. Scientific minds throughout the ages have been constantly reminded that the real world is often very different from the laboratory. The big X factor that intrigues me is how passengers will act unsupervised. My theory, based on real world observation of human behavior in myriad context, is that they will soil and damage the car at an exponentially higher rate than if someone was in the car supervising.


----------



## LA Cabbie

ExpendableAsset said:


> Excellent observations, especially on the 24 hour robotic workday. Of course, more work is more miles and damage. Your last sentence is my favorite however. Scientific minds throughout the ages have been constantly reminded that the real world is often very different from the laboratory. The big X factor that intrigues me is how passengers will act unsupervised. My theory, based on real world observation of human behavior in myriad context, is that they will soil and damage the car at an exponentially higher rate than if someone was in the car supervising.


The technology is there to detect everything that can happen to a car. Let's say Uber has supervisors like in the taxi industry, supervisors roll around making sure all the drivers and taxis are in accordance. So let's say a passenger does something bad, urinate in the car, through time stamps, it can be physically traced back to a passenger by a supervisor. BAM! Uber charges the card of the offender $250. They most certainly will make more from passengers being naughty than the actual rides.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Probably the best concept and easiest company to turn a profit continues losing money because they have morons at the top who appear driven to only want to lose money. 

Only a moron can run this company and not turn a profit yet.

And, no, news article, Uber did NOT turn a profit last quarter(you aren't earning a profit if you are leaving out costs from the equation). Keep saying that though, maybe people will believe it anyhow.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Uber is ATLEAST 4 times cheaper than a cab. They can double the prices right now, be atleast 2 times cheaper than a cab, and NOT SEE ANY DROP OFF WHATSOEVER FROM RIDERSHIP. And Lyft would do the same damn thing because there is no competition whatsoever.

The prices are BELOW market equlibrium, and have been since their inception.

But they don't want to. They want to keep losing money.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Michael - Cleveland said:


> "Uber is losing money faster than any technology company ever, and it's largely because of an essential component to the company's operations: the drivers."


Wrong, the problem is they want to keep the rates so low that drivers continue bailing out. If they, instead, raised prices 50% they would be able to keep drivers and not have to donate money to buy new drivers who only drive to get the bonus, then stop driving.

Also they would be making more money by raising the rates as well.

This isn't rocket science. The people at the top are morons.


----------



## hounddogman

No, they are attempting to monopolize their market share by balancing their cash position vis a vis subsidizing drivers vs. luring riders long enough to force the competition out of the market, or hope that driverless cars become a real thing before the auto loan market sours.


----------



## RightTurnClyde

hounddogman said:


> No, they are attempting to monopolize their market share by balancing their cash position vis a vis subsidizing drivers vs. luring riders long enough to force the competition out of the market, or hope that driverless cars become a real thing before the auto loan market sours.


Great post that sees the big picture.

It's not as simple as just believing Uber is losing money!!!! Yes, you heard that right and people need to stop putting so much faith into every knucklehead article that says differently. You aren't losing anything when you purposefully direct the profits towards gaining market share and crushing the competition (that makes uber MORE valuable and it's money well spent). I guarentee you that "dollar for dollar" it's more beneficial for them to publicly claim a loss, than to keep their reported bottom line in the green at this time.


----------



## HazardousDescent

http://gizmodo.com/why-uber-is-losing-money-faster-than-any-tech-company-e-1785736918

Losing money to drivers? That's not a lose if it's their only source of revenue, unless their investors are just donating to them.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RightTurnClyde said:


> Great post that sees the big picture.
> 
> It's not as simple as just believing Uber is losing money!!!! Yes, you heard that right and people need to stop putting so much faith into every knucklehead article that says differently. You aren't losing anything when you purposefully direct the profits towards gaining market share and crushing the competition (that makes uber MORE valuable and it's money well spent). I guarentee you that "dollar for dollar" it's more beneficial for them to publicly claim a loss, than to keep their reported bottom line in the green at this time.


lol "gaining market share".... you mean blowing *billions* in every single country they are in, including the $2 billion China debacle ?

If they weren't losing money in every single country they operate in, and simply just breaking even I could say "sure", but they have yet to turn a profit in their 6 year history and have blown through more money($16.5 billion) than any company this side of Bernie Madoff Securities LLC.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/recovered-madoff-money-now-11-billion-hidden/story?id=36529402


----------



## RightTurnClyde

uberdriverfornow said:


> lol "gaining market share".... you mean blowing *billions* in every single country they are in, including the $2 billion China debacle ?
> 
> If they weren't losing money in every single country they operate in, and simply just breaking even I could say "sure", but they have yet to turn a profit in their 6 year history and have blown through more money($16.5 billion) than any company this side of Bernie Madoff Securities LLC.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/recovered-madoff-money-now-11-billion-hidden/story?id=36529402


LOL??? Consider...

You know who was losing massive amounts of money before they were bought; YouTube! Similarly, Amazon took years and years and to come out of the red! Why is that...????

Uber and many other startups have adopted a strategy to keep prices artificially low to get themselves deep into valued markets "gaining market share" (i.e. by losing money). That builds a large customer base that not only uses their services but eventually relies upon on it (very important).

Secondly, uber has a seemingly steady flow of venture capitol at this time from deep pocketed individuals and even nation states which still amazes me (i.e. financing from the outside thus not needing to rely on internal profit). If they succeed, they then can change tactics after running everyone else out of business and snowball this into real actual hard cash and profit (the plan)!

As I mentioned in my previous post, there's a bigger picture to look at and ubers huge losses are calculated losses towards a bigger gain. I'm in no way suggesting that this tactic will work (I hope it doesn't), and Travis may well be the the greatest con man of all time (time will tell). In spite of this, relying on earnings reports now, to infer that ubers boat is starting to sink or is a losing venture is shortsighted and not worth writing about except for generating headlines.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

RightTurnClyde said:


> LOL??? Consider...
> 
> You know who was losing massive amounts of money before they were bought; YouTube! Similarly, Amazon took years and years and to come out of the red! Why is that...????
> 
> Uber and many other startups have adopted a strategy to keep prices artificially low to get themselves deep into valued markets "gaining market share" (i.e. lose money). That builds a large customer base that not only uses their services but eventually relies upon on it (very important).
> 
> Secondly, uber has a seemingly steady flow of venture capitol at this time from deep pocketed individuals and even nation states which still amazes me (i.e. financing from the outside thus not needing to rely on internal profit). If they succeed, they then can change tactics after running everyone else out of business and snowball this into real actual hard cash and profit (the plan)!
> 
> As I mentioned in my previous post, there's a bigger picture to look at and ubers huge losses are calculated losses towards a bigger gain. I'm in no way suggesting that this tactic will work (I hope it doesn't), and Travis may well be the the greatest con man of all time (time will tell). In spite of this, relying on earnings reports now, to infer that ubers boat is starting to sink or is a losing venture is shortsighted and not worth writing about except for generating headlines.


Are you having a problem seeing the difference between Amazon seeing 0 net profit over 20 versus Uber losing 16 billion over 6 years ?

Amazon is simply not making a profit, while Uber's losses are historic.


----------



## RightTurnClyde

uberdriverfornow said:


> Are you having a problem seeing the difference between Amazon seeing 0 net profit over 20 versus Uber losing 16 billion over 6 years ?
> 
> Amazon is simply not making a profit, while Uber's losses are historic.


Nope, guess you'll have to explain it to me then as I tried to do for you...


----------



## hounddogman

I think the confusion here lies in the fact that a lot of people cannot comprehend the fact that a company can have value, and at the same time be either loss-making or burning through cash at an alarming rate.


----------



## TravisNJ

But the difference is that this company has very little ASSETS. If all of us were to shut our apps off or a new mousetrap debuted tomorrow, UBER would have nothing.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

With the sale of Uber China - the receipt of $1bil from Didi, and the acquisition of 17%-20% of Didi, Uber has cut its largest cash bleed.

uberdriverfornow is convinced, apparently, that not only is Uber management stupid (having created the largest, fastest growing tech start-up in history) but that professional money managers and investors are also just idiots.
He may be right. But I doubt it.

NY Times...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/t...than-1-billion-in-the-first-half-of-2016.html

_That spending came to an end earlier this month, when Uber agreed to sell its subsidiary company, Uber China, to Didi. Didi also agreed to invest $1 billion into Uber Global. *The deal curtails Uber's biggest cash drain* over the coming quarter, according to the person briefed on the company's finances.

Still, Uber will continue spending elsewhere. The San Francisco-based company has stated publicly that it is willing to spend to fight competition in some of its most advanced markets, like the United States, where it is battling its rival Lyft.

There are some bright spots in Uber's financials. The company posted significant revenue growth in the second quarter of this year, this person said, including a 31 percent jump to more than $5 billion in second-quarter bookings, a method of accounting that includes the money paid out to Uber drivers.

Net revenue, the amount Uber pulls in after paying out commissions to drivers, was roughly $960 million in the first quarter, before jumping to $1.1 billion in the second quarter_​


uberdriverfornow said:


> This isn't rocket science. The people at the top are morons.


lmao

right... the people at the bottom of the food chain (drivers) are losing money...
and the people at the top - who are making fortunes, they're the ones who are "morons".


----------



## phillipzx3

uberdriverfornow said:


> Uber is ATLEAST 4 times cheaper than a cab. They can double the prices right now, be atleast 2 times cheaper than a cab, and NOT SEE ANY DROP OFF WHATSOEVER FROM RIDERSHIP. And Lyft would do the same damn thing because there is no competition whatsoever.
> 
> The prices are BELOW market equlibrium, and have been since their inception.
> 
> But they don't want to. They want to keep losing money.


Uber from downtown Portland to the airport is 24-26 bucks. Cab from downtown Portland to PDX is 30 to 35.

I can see why you're driving for Uber, given your math skills.

If Uber doubled the price, they would be charging THE EXACT SAME RATE per mile as the cabs do in Portland. Uber's "flag drop" is twice that of our cabs. And they charge per minute as well....no matter if they're moving or sitting still.

What flavour is that Goober kool-aid you're drinking?


----------



## phillipzx3

uberdriverfornow said:


> Wrong, the problem is they want to keep the rates so low that drivers continue bailing out. If they, instead, raised prices 50% they would be able to keep drivers and not have to donate money to buy new drivers who only drive to get the bonus, then stop driving.
> 
> Also they would be making more money by raising the rates as well.
> 
> This isn't rocket science. The people at the top are morons.


No...the people at the top are brilliant. They suckered morons into believing they had a business with Uber as their "partner."

Those at the top of Uber are pocketing millions of $$. How much have YOU made via Uber? A few thousand, TOPS.

So tell me again, who's the moron?


----------



## hounddogman

Yeah, they're some pretty smart people.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

ExpendableAsset said:


> I would really like to see this driverless car expense model these knuckleheads have concocted. I honestly do not believe it will be cheaper for Uber at all. Uber will have to own and maintain this massive fleet,


Says who? Just as drivers today own and maintain the vehicles used for Uber, it's pretty easy to envision that in the future, fleet experts (like Hertz, National, Enterprise) will own and maintain the cars used for TNCs. (side note: investors are already starting to put money into those types of operations)


----------



## backstreets-trans

One thing no one mentions is that growth will stagnate real soon. The Chinese market was huge with growth opportunities. Now that it's gone growth will slow. That 60 billion evaluation isn't quite as attractive with growth slowing. They estimate a 87% market share. That number will get chipped away at once incentives disappear. 

Most exdrivers are also passengers so they should lose some of that business along with most of the customers gouged by high surge rates. The quality has also dropped so that leads to a loss in market share.

Ubers future isn't as rosie as it use to be. Investors have gotten worried and the race for driverless technology is a big gamble. 

Lastly uber is already in all of the profitable big metropolitan US cities. Where is future grow coming from??? Not the corn fields in Iowa or the deserts of the southwest. Rural area have very little profit. Something to think about.


----------



## ExpendableAsset

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Says who? Just as drivers today own and maintain the vehicles used for Uber, it's pretty easy to envision that in the future, fleet experts (like Hertz, National, Enterprise) will own and maintain the cars used for TNCs. (side note: investors are already starting to put money into those types of operations)


It is a clever idea I will admit.


----------



## wpguy1967

Let's expose some myths:

The people running Uber are getting filthy rich! Incorrect, most of their compensation is tied to private stock options that they can't touch. If the company crashes, they are penniless.

The people investing in Uber are getting filthy rich! Also incorrect, and they in fact stand to lose the most. At some point in time, the company actually makes a real profit, or they "cash in." That cash in might be for a fraction of what they invested.

And if you think huge companies can't play their cards wrong and lose everything, give Yahoo a call. They "owned" the entire internet once.

Uber runs an insane risk of local regulations that could tighten over time. And localities don't have to go after Uber in court, all they have to do is start fining the drivers.

Reference AirBnB who thought they were "too big" to comply with a NY court order. So what did NYC do? They went directly after the people renting on AirBnB....and that certainly got their attention.

And of course, that's in the U.S. If Asian countries decide to change the rules on Uber, they simply start arresting Uber drivers and executives.


----------



## hounddogman

Good point about going after individuals, and the differences between mostly Western countries where property rights and the rule of law enjoy a certain amount of rigor and transparency, compared to places that don't.

Outside of South Africa, attempting to pick up a business model from an advanced economy and drop in anywhere in Sub-Saharan Africa is almost always a terrible idea.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

wpguy1967 said:


> Let's expose some myths:
> 
> The people running Uber are getting filthy rich! Incorrect, most of their compensation is tied to private stock options that they can't touch. If the company crashes, they are penniless.


 No idea on what basis you make that claim. It's absurd. If you think for one minute that "the people running Uber" haven't already made bank, you're dreaming. They were all taken care of, for life, in the first round of funding. I can state with relative certainty that no one at the 'top' of the Uber food chain will leave Uber "penniless".

Somewhat remarkably, you didn't mention the one major risk the company has: is it's business model.
If they cannot move to self-driven cars and the courts determine that drivers are employees, the future of the company itself rests entirely on 'Plan B' - if they have one.


----------



## wpguy1967

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No idea on what basis you make that claim. It's absurd. If you think for one minute that "the people running Uber" haven't already made bank, you're dreaming. They were all taken care of, for life, in the first round of funding. I can state with relative certainty that no one at the 'top' of the Uber food chain will leave Uber "penniless".
> 
> Somewhat remarkably, you didn't mention the one major risk the company has: is it's business model.
> If they cannot move to self-driven cars and the courts determine that drivers are employees, the future of the company itself rests entirely on 'Plan B' - if they have one.


So this is how you think a start-up works: Someone with no money has a great idea. Then people with gobs of money start to invest in a company that devoid of any profits, they have to pump money into it constantly but the guy who started it says "Ok, throw millions into my bank account while you're at it?" LOL!

I'm not saying they're not making anything. But their "gold mine" is when the company actually turns a profit. This is in private stock which the media reports them to be "billionaires." If I put 5 billion on your bank tomorrow, then say you're not allowed to touch any of it, are you a billionaire?

The founders of Uber are compensated well but they by no means have "billions" until their investors first can start recouping some of their money...which hasn't happened yet.

Reference YouTube, PayPal and Facebook where the creators were "worth" billions but cannot realize that money until they either get bought out or the company actually starts making money.


----------



## GooberX

LA Cabbie said:


> http://gizmodo.com/why-uber-is-losing-money-faster-than-any-tech-company-e-1785736918
> 
> "Eventually, Uber will get rid of the drivers and turn a huge profit."
> 
> "What is surprising, however, is that the biggest cost to the company is the fee it pays out to drivers."
> 
> The success and longevity of this company rests on firing the drivers.


Pipe Dream


----------



## NachonCheeze

IMO...these journalist and how they assume the "driverless car" is a matter of fact...meaning, there are no technical or social issues to resolve and just because Travis says its going to happen it will happen.
Yes there are some working now but it is in a VERY controlled and limited environment.... not ready for prime time in any near future


----------



## rembrandt

Price war is a dangerous game , dancing with the devil. This is specially true for a company which has IPO in sight.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

phillipzx3 said:


> Uber from downtown Portland to the airport is 24-26 bucks. Cab from downtown Portland to PDX is 30 to 35.
> 
> I can see why you're driving for Uber, given your math skills.
> 
> If Uber doubled the price, they would be charging THE EXACT SAME RATE per mile as the cabs do in Portland. Uber's "flag drop" is twice that of our cabs. And they charge per minute as well....no matter if they're moving or sitting still.
> 
> What flavour is that Goober kool-aid you're drinking?


I guess you guys are lucky(lol) that taxis are the same price as Ubers. Here in California they are definitely 4 times more expensive.


----------



## Bolympia

uberdriverfornow said:


> I guess you guys are lucky(lol) that taxis are the same price as Ubers. Here in California they are definitely 4 times more expensive.


No. In SF Taxis are 58% more expensive at Uber X's base rate (no surge); 70-75% more expensive if you factor in the taxi tip.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Bolympia said:


> No. In SF Taxis are 58% more expensive at Uber X's base rate (no surge); 70-75% more expensive if you factor in the taxi tip.


That may be on paper, but everyone that gets in my car says Uber is 4 times cheaper than a cab. A $15 Uber ride would be $60 in a cab.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

wpguy1967 said:


> So this is how you think a start-up works: Someone with no money has a great idea. Then people with gobs of money start to invest in a company that devoid of any profits, they have to pump money into it constantly but the guy who started it says "Ok, throw millions into my bank account while you're at it?" LOL!


 ?? Why would you put words like that in my mouth? Silly - and disrespectful.


> I'm not saying they're not making anything.


Your words, in fact, were: "If the company crashes, they are penniless."
I disagree.


----------



## OlDirtySapper

LA Cabbie said:


> http://gizmodo.com/why-uber-is-losing-money-faster-than-any-tech-company-e-1785736918
> 
> "Eventually, Uber will get rid of the drivers and turn a huge profit."
> 
> "What is surprising, however, is that the biggest cost to the company is the fee it pays out to drivers."
> 
> The success and longevity of this company rests on firing the drivers.


It always has. They were honest about it from the start at least. And now they are spending way to much money on areas that dont involve them achieving their goal of driverless cars. People mention Amazon but they spend their money on things like replacing all their fork truck drivers and other warehouse staff to reduce cost. And they don't lose money they just don't turn a profit. Amazon went from a bookstore to a we are gonna deliver anything you want to your door store on the money they been spending. What does Uber have to show? A few sham demo cars with drivers in them still?


----------



## REX HAVOC

LA Cabbie said:


> http://gizmodo.com/why-uber-is-losing-money-faster-than-any-tech-company-e-1785736918
> 
> "Eventually, Uber will get rid of the drivers and turn a huge profit."
> 
> "What is surprising, however, is that the biggest cost to the company is the fee it pays out to drivers."
> 
> The success and longevity of this company rests on firing the drivers.


Yes, but they will then have to pay all of their own transportation costs such as new car, fuel, maintenance, and insurance as well as storage lots for their car fleets.


----------



## uber strike

we should start a go fund me for uber.


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

Gung-Ho said:


> Lose a billion here and a billion there. I can see this ending well for them.
> 
> What is the payoff here for uber.


You can find your answers in "Zero to One" by Peter Thiel. He builds-into the subject so I'll just refer you--no need for another book on these forums.


----------



## Euius

Bolympia said:


> No. In SF Taxis are 58% more expensive at Uber X's base rate (no surge); 70-75% more expensive if you factor in the taxi tip.


You're not counting the time, which taxis do bill for during traffic, or the 150% fare for trips outside SF

Also outside SF proper, 4x is accurate just in basic fares


----------



## OlDirtySapper

REX HAVOC said:


> Yes, but they will then have to pay all of their own transportation costs such as new car, fuel, maintenance, and insurance as well as storage lots for their car fleets.


Oh yeah not just that but whos gonna clean up after these animals that get in the car. Think about the shit some of these people do with a driver in the car, just think about how dumb its gonna get without one. Like I can see it now the first night they are driverless the 2nd trip the car pulls up just full of puke and cig smoke. Hell some of these college kids would pry try to put 15 people in one. Seriously when im cleaning the car most days I feel like i should just start putting hay down instead of floor mats. And thats if they can figure out where the right car is. Half of these people cant get the proper address in the app as it is. My money is on at least one catching fire from a smoker in the first few months. I have no doubt they can get a car that will drive itself but finding one that can deal with cab people. Good luck. Really once there are good driverless systems they will completely redesign the car without a steering wheel and it will be pretty safe. The insurance costs will be much lower than today as well with a reduced number of accidents from automated systems improving and less real drivers being on the road (you know 70-80% of these people just suck at driving you yell at them everyday when they almost cause accidents in front of you.) Maybe then you can make it some kind of easy for a machine to scrub out configuration and hose it down after every ride or 2. They got alot they need to be spending money on. I just dont think its in the right places if they are losing billions at this point. If you told me they took 50mil in losses developing a machine to scrape the semen out of the back seats I would think they were more on the right track to their actual goal.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

RightTurnClyde said:


> Great post that sees the big picture.
> 
> It's not as simple as just believing Uber is losing money!!!! Yes, you heard that right and people need to stop putting so much faith into every knucklehead article that says differently. You aren't losing anything when you purposefully direct the profits towards gaining market share and crushing the competition (that makes uber MORE valuable and it's money well spent). I guarentee you that "dollar for dollar" it's more beneficial for them to publicly claim a loss, than to keep their reported bottom line in the green at this time.


Oh bullcrap LMAO


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

LA Cabbie said:


> Another poster did the math. Say Uber charges $1 a mile and has a 50/50 partnership say with Volvo. Uber provides the software and Volvo the hardware. Say that these Robocars can generate $500 per 24 hour day. $250 for Uber to run their ops and $250 for Volvo to run theirs. I think that if the caretaker of Robocar can put in their pockets net profits of $50 a day, which is better than a rental car company, this would be profitable. Of course, this is best case scenario in a perfect world.


Yeah that was close to my initial calculations.
Essentially, Volvo will make more by operating the car for 5 years than by selling it.
But they have to merge their operations into a seamless manufacturing/fleet maintenance company.
$456,250 gross over 60 months on paper for Volvo.
Adjust that down to $350,000 gross based on real world conditions.
Figure a maintenance curve which gets very expensive during the last 2 years based on shitbox (any of you ever owned a taxi fleet? I have) so I'm guessing $100,000 overhead including gas insurance all maintenance expenses leaves $250,000 on a Volvo which would have sold for $70,000.

Of COURSE there's monster profit in running a robot fleet.
The only labor you pay are mechanics, edit and manufacturing costs. and you keep them on salary.


----------



## RightTurnClyde

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Oh bullcrap LMAO





TwoFiddyMile said:


> Oh bullcrap LMAO


whats your reasoning?


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Euius said:


> You're not counting the time, which taxis do bill for during traffic, or the 150% fare for trips outside SF
> 
> Also outside SF proper, 4x is accurate just in basic fares


It's likely the same in Portland in the earlier poster's comment. I can't speak for the exact rates since I'm not a cabbie but I can speak for the times I've used a cab in the past and the numerous passengers who have stated it being atleast 4 times cheaper.


----------



## Bolympia

Euius said:


> You're not counting the time, which taxis do bill for during traffic, or the 150% fare for trips outside SF
> 
> Also outside SF proper, 4x is accurate just in basic fares


No. The figures given are approximate and time charged is negligible. 55 cents per minute of sitting still, the time is cumulative and the wheels of the car have to be completely stationary for the time charge to kick in. Trips outside of SF are 150% if they're more than 15 miles outside SF city limits or if the origin of the trip is at the airport, the trips have to be more than 15 miles from both the airport and the SF city limits, of which most are not.

That 4x BS is what it is; Hyperbole.


----------



## Bolympia

uberdriverfornow said:


> That may be on paper, but everyone that gets in my car says Uber is 4 times cheaper than a cab. A $15 Uber ride would be $60 in a cab.


It's Hyperbole man.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Bolympia said:


> It's Hyperbole, and I think you know that.


Not at all. Go take a cab somewhere and compare it to an Uber ride and see for it yourself. People don't use cabs because they know it costs a fortune. People use Uber because it costs 4 times less.


----------



## Bolympia

OlDirtySapper said:


> Oh yeah not just that but whos gonna clean up after these animals that get in the car. Think about the shit some of these people do with a driver in the car, just think about how dumb its gonna get without one. Like I can see it now the first night they are driverless the 2nd trip the car pulls up just full of puke and cig smoke. Hell some of these college kids would pry try to put 15 people in one. Seriously when im cleaning the car most days I feel like i should just start putting hay down instead of floor mats. And thats if they can figure out where the right car is. Half of these people cant get the proper address in the app as it is. My money is on at least one catching fire from a smoker in the first few months. I have no doubt they can get a car that will drive itself but finding one that can deal with cab people. Good luck. Really once there are good driverless systems they will completely redesign the car without a steering wheel and it will be pretty safe. The insurance costs will be much lower than today as well with a reduced number of accidents from automated systems improving and less real drivers being on the road (you know 70-80% of these people just suck at driving you yell at them everyday when they almost cause accidents in front of you.) Maybe then you can make it some kind of easy for a machine to scrub out configuration and hose it down after every ride or 2. They got alot they need to be spending money on. I just dont think its in the right places if they are losing billions at this point. If you told me they took 50mil in losses developing a machine to scrape the semen out of the back seats I would think they were more on the right track to their actual goal.


I've been thinking this as well. Not just inside the car, but outside. Consider bored teenagers with sling shots.


----------



## Bolympia

uberdriverfornow said:


> Not at all. Go take a cab somewhere and compare it to an Uber ride and see for it yourself. People don't use cabs because they know it costs a fortune. People use Uber because it costs 4 times less.


I've already looked at the numbers. Unless UberX charges 3x less than what it states it charges, there is no way in hell that a taxi is 4x more expensive, because taxi rates are not variable.


----------



## GooberX

Euius said:


> You're not counting the time, which taxis do bill for during traffic, or the 150% fare for trips outside SF
> 
> Also outside SF proper, 4x is accurate just in basic fares


The culprits are regulations that keep cabs from picking up outside their licensed area and have to come back empty.

Remember regulations?

Oh yeah, no, Uber doesn't follow any.


----------



## Jermin8r89

Uber has bad publicity as every company knows their workers take up alot of money but isnt it better to pay for helpers instead of working yourself constintly u hire accountant office administrators finacial advisors. I think all money they putting into chinia market is hurting them so just concede defeat there. Travis is becomeing very greaty hes got billions and has the future of transportation in his hands noone is gonna take it away anytime soon


----------



## Gung-Ho

thelittleguyhelper said:


> You can find your answers in "Zero to One" by Peter Thiel. He builds-into the subject so I'll just refer you--no need for another book on these forums.


I went to my bible for the cliff notes Wikipedia.

Not exactly glowing reviews.


----------



## Gung-Ho

uberdriverfornow said:


> Not at all. Go take a cab somewhere and compare it to an Uber ride and see for it yourself. People don't use cabs because they know it costs a fortune. People use Uber because it costs 4 times less.


This is ludicrous. In my area taxis are $3.50 per mile. Uber is $1.90 per mile + $.25 per minute. Show me how those numbers make uber 4 times cheaper and I'll nominate you to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Here, UberX is 3.2 times cheaper than a taxi.
Hence they destroy their $&!+boxes very quickly in an UberX.


----------



## tohunt4me

Interesting cover picture.

I KNEW that ship name was familure !


----------



## tohunt4me

tohunt4me said:


> Interesting cover picture.
> 
> I KNEW that ship name was familure !


For some reason,it made me recall the "Libya Dawn".

Rust Never Sleeps.


----------



## tohunt4me

tohunt4me said:


> For some reason,it made me recall the "Libya Dawn".
> 
> Rust Never Sleeps.


Yup . . . .

How ' bout those elections . . .


----------



## jack badly

ExpendableAsset said:


> Excellent observations, especially on the 24 hour robotic workday. Of course, more work is more miles and damage. Your last sentence is my favorite however. Scientific minds throughout the ages have been constantly reminded that the real world is often very different from the laboratory. The big X factor that intrigues me is how passengers will act unsupervised. My theory, based on real world observation of human behavior in myriad context, is that they will soil and damage the car at an exponentially higher rate than if someone was in the car supervising.


it is called CAmeras, installed inside and outide the car


----------



## jack badly

Uber is losing money now, but not in the next 7-10 years(possibly longer if something screws up) when fully self driving car rolling out on the streets. That explains why uber is in such a hurry to replace human drivers. 

robot cars can work 24/7. they won't reject pool rides like human does. it is a win win situation for them

work while you still can. The future will be very bleak. fewer jobs.


----------



## tohunt4me

jack badly said:


> Uber is losing money now, but not in the next 7-10 years(possibly longer if something screws up) when fully self driving car rolling out on the streets. That explains why uber is in such a hurry to replace human drivers.
> 
> robot cars can work 24/7. they won't reject pool rides like human does. it is a win win situation for them
> 
> work while you still can. The future will be very bleak. fewer jobs.


Uber is a technology company,therefore not subject to laws.

Once Uber owns ROBOT cars ,game over.

Enter Legislation Nirvana.


----------



## Rat

LA Cabbie said:


> http://gizmodo.com/why-uber-is-losing-money-faster-than-any-tech-company-e-1785736918
> 
> "Eventually, Uber will get rid of the drivers and turn a huge profit."
> 
> "What is surprising, however, is that the biggest cost to the company is the fee it pays out to drivers."
> 
> The success and longevity of this company rests on firing the drivers.


Buying, fueling,and maintaining their own vehicles will cost them more than the drivers


----------



## Rat

LA Cabbie said:


> The technology is there to detect everything that can happen to a car. Let's say Uber has supervisors like in the taxi industry, supervisors roll around making sure all the drivers and taxis are in accordance. So let's say a passenger does something bad, urinate in the car, through time stamps, it can be physically traced back to a passenger by a supervisor. BAM! Uber charges the card of the offender $250. They most certainly will make more from passengers being naughty than the actual rides.


BAM! The rider denies the charge!


----------



## m1a1mg

Michael - Cleveland said:


> No idea on what basis you make that claim. It's absurd. If you think for one minute that "the people running Uber" haven't already made bank, you're dreaming. They were all taken care of, for life, in the first round of funding. I can state with relative certainty that no one at the 'top' of the Uber food chain will leave Uber "penniless"..


You made the claim. Produce on iota of evidence. Big money investors aren't giving away golden parachutes at this juncture.

You have no clue how pre-IPO companies work.


----------



## m1a1mg

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Here, UberX is 3.2 times cheaper than a taxi.
> Hence they destroy their $&!+boxes very quickly in an UberX.


Taxi rates for Yellow Cab of Charlotte: http://www.yellowcabofcharlotte.net/ratesreservations.aspx
Uber rates for Charlotte: http://uberestimator.com/cities/charlotte


----------



## Karl Marx

Chip Dawg said:


> Uber Loses at Least $1.2 Billion in First Half of 2016.
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...es-at-least-1-2-billion-in-first-half-of-2016


Uber is not losing money, they're decimating the competition. Taxi and Limos first and Uber drivers last but not least. Uber is following in the footsteps of Amazon. The warehouse for Amazon in Mississauga has some of the most sophisticated robots and software in the world. Managers are given bonuses to find ways to automate human tasks.


----------



## Rat

Karl Marx said:


> Uber is not losing money, they're decimating the competition. Taxi and Limos first and Uber drivers last but not least. Uber is following the in the footsteps of Amazon. The warehouse for Amazon in Mississauga has some of the most sophisticated robots and software in the world. Managers are given bonuses to find ways to automate human tasks.


They may be decimating the competition, but they're only doing so by operating at a loss.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Rat said:


> They may be decimating the competition, but they're only doing so by operating at a loss.


Lol.
Why debate capitalism with Karl Marx?
I considered it, then rejected it.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

tohunt4me said:


> Uber is a technology company,therefore not subject to laws.
> Once Uber owns ROBOT cars ,game over. Enter Legislation Nirvana.


https://uberpeople.net/threads/mich...te-to-allow-self-driving-cars-cnn-8-27.99367/


----------



## KMANDERSON

LA Cabbie said:


> Bad, Bad Uber drivers. Causing such a noble and good hearted company to lose money. You should be paying Uber for the privilege and honor of hauling around trash er I mean passengers. I say we should dedicate at least one day a week whereby Uber drivers donate ALL their earnings to Grandmaster er I mean comrade er I mean Dear Führer Travis.


Well most uber pool rides are non profitable,so you are paying uber to drive for them.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

m1a1mg said:


> You made the claim.


 Uh, no - you made the claim of 'penniless'.


> Produce on iota of evidence.


 That's the point - there is NO evidence of something that hasn't happened or will only happen in the future. Your claim ins absurd - an opinion at best.


> Big money investors aren't giving away golden parachutes at this juncture.


"Produce on iota of evidence [sic]" specific to Kalanick, Plouffe or other top management at Uber.


> You have no clue how pre-IPO companies work.


Actually, you have no idea what I know.

FYI: Software Engineers at Uber earn between $135,000 and $159,000/yr according to Glassdoor... what do you think the CEO makes? The VP of Global Strategy? The Chief Legal Counsel? You're suggesting these folks live paycheck-to-paycheck - and that's ridiculous.


----------



## Undermensch

hounddogman said:


> I think the confusion here lies in the fact that a lot of people cannot comprehend the fact that a company can have value, and at the same time be either loss-making or burning through cash at an alarming rate.


Oh. Ok. "This time it's different". The rallying cry of knowledgeable investors right?

Just like Webvan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webvan

Valuation of $4+ billion, revenue of $400k, and losses of $50 million. That didn't turn out well.

People are not fools for saying that Ubers historic loss levels are a huge risk to the company's continued existence.

A valuation of $60 billion is not the same as "raised $60 billion". They have raised only a fraction of their valuation as money they can spend and these losses will make it harder for them to continue raising money.

It also increases the return other investors could get if they funded a non-brain dead competitor. Why take your returns after Ubers huge losses building the market when you could Facebook them instead (takeover the market they created with near immediate profitability)?

I don't claim that everyone questioning the losses know why it's bad. But some do.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Undermensch said:


> A valuation of $60 billion is not the same as "raised $60 billion". They have raised only a fraction of their valuation as money they can spend and these losses will make it harder for them to continue raising money.


 Except they just cut loose the single biggest source of those losses - and are working towards cutting their single biggest expense.


----------



## Milito

LA Cabbie said:


> http://gizmodo.com/why-uber-is-losing-money-faster-than-any-tech-company-e-1785736918
> 
> "Eventually, Uber will get rid of the drivers and turn a huge profit."
> 
> "What is surprising, however, is that the biggest cost to the company is the fee it pays out to drivers."
> 
> The success and longevity of this company rests on firing the drivers.


If they get rid of drivers they gain 20 or 25% more but they are gonna invest in cars, gas, maintenance they'll spend more money


----------



## m1a1mg

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Uh, no - you made the claim of 'penniless'. That's the point - there is NO evidence of something that hasn't happened or will only happen in the future. Your claim ins absurd - an opinion at best."Produce on iota of evidence [sic]" specific to Kalanick, Plouffe or other top management at Uber.Actually, you have no idea what I know.
> 
> FYI: Software Engineers at Uber earn between $135,000 and $159,000/yr according to Glassdoor... what do you think the CEO makes? The VP of Global Strategy? The Chief Legal Counsel? You're suggesting these folks live paycheck-to-paycheck - and that's ridiculous.


I can't find anywhere that I said penniless. Do try to keep up.
Many pre-IPO companies reward their top people with stock options. The software guys making $135k in SF ain't rich. By any stretch.

I think if you knew anything you wouldn't be posting here. I don't think the big shots at Uber are "living paycheck to paycheck", but if they are like many tech startups, the stock options are where the money waits.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

A lot of people are comparing taxis to UberX, did everyone forget Uber has cheap ass UberPool ?


----------



## tohunt4me

Milito said:


> If they get rid of drivers they gain 20 or 25% more but they are gonna invest in cars, gas, maintenance they'll spend more money


Uber has underestimated what it costs for us to run their business.

They are in for a harsh reality.

Once drivers no longer subsidise Uber,how much more will they lose ?


----------



## Rat

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Except they just cut loose the single biggest source of those losses - and are working towards cutting their single biggest expense.


Only by taking on a new big expense. They don't get those self driving cars for free


----------



## RightTurnClyde

I think a lot of confusion on this subject is because new startups operate differently than in the traditional sense. 

For example, take an established company like in manufactured goods (traditional). In this case, if they try to grab marketshare, things don't work out, eventually they lose a lot of money because the cost of their operations doesn't match their revenues. Things are simply never going to get better, and it makes sense to call it quits.

Uber on the other hand, is losing billions because Uber by its own direction chooses to lose billions at this time. I know it's hard to contemplate (and yes it most certainly can fail), but growth above all else is what ubers engine runs on. In companies like these, their operations costs grow much more slowly than the size of their business, but their revenue directly depend on that size. For instance, a software tech company doesn't need to spend 1000 times more in resources if their user base goes from 1000 to 1 million; contrary to our manufacturer from above that would have to buy materials etc. to cover a lot of demand.

Therefore, fast growing startups spend a lot of money on GROWTH at a loss if needed because size means more revenue, but not higher cost. In other words, if a startup grows quickly enough, it multiplies its revenue, but if it doesn't, it can lose it all. Hence the money poured into growth. Eventually if successful, the money spent on growth solidifies and turns into a steady source of revenue. 

This is why uber is in the red. It's not because of mismanagement, or poor business sense, its because it's part of their core strategy. 

If uber wanted, they could stop the guarentees, subsidies, free rides, referrals, etc. at a moments notice and cash in. They choose not to at this time.


----------



## Gung-Ho

RightTurnClyde said:


> If uber wanted, they could stop the guarentees, subsidies, free rides, referrals, etc. at a moments notice and cash in. They choose not to at this time.


Because then their "_growth" _goes in full reverse to retraction.


----------



## Rat

RightTurnClyde said:


> I think a lot of confusion on this subject is because new startups operate differently than in the traditional sense.
> 
> For example, take an established company like in manufactured goods (traditional). In this case, if they try to grab marketshare, things don't work out, eventually they lose a lot of money because the cost of their operations doesn't match their revenues. Things are simply never going to get better, and it makes sense to call it quits.
> 
> Uber on the other hand, is losing billions because Uber by its own direction chooses to lose billions at this time. I know it's hard to contemplate (and yes it most certainly can fail), but growth above all else is what ubers engine runs on. In companies like these, their operations costs grow much more slowly than the size of their business, but their revenue directly depend on that size. For instance, a software tech company doesn't need to spend 1000 times more in resources if their user base goes from 1000 to 1 million; contrary to our manufacturer from above that would have to buy materials etc. to cover a lot of demand.
> 
> Therefore, fast growing startups spend a lot of money on GROWTH at a loss if needed because size means more revenue, but not higher cost. In other words, if a startup grows quickly enough, it multiplies its revenue, but if it doesn't, it can lose it all. Hence the money poured into growth. Eventually if successful, the money spent on growth solidifies and turns into a steady source of revenue.
> 
> This is why uber is in the red. It's not because of mismanagement, or poor business sense, its because it's part of their core strategy.
> 
> If uber wanted, they could stop the guarentees, subsidies, free rides, referrals, etc. at a moments notice and cash in. They choose not to at this time.


If they stop the guarantees, subsidies, etc. they lose drivers and simultainiously slow or halt the influx of new drivers. This causes a lower standard of service( or no service at all). The model is unsustainable. Uber is counting on driverless cars to save its bacon. Will they be cheaper than the "free" cars they are using now?


----------



## RightTurnClyde

Rat said:


> If they stop the guarantees, subsidies, etc. they lose drivers and simultainiously slow or halt the influx of new drivers. This causes a lower standard of service( or no service at all). The model is unsustainable. Uber is counting on driverless cars to save its bacon. Will they be cheaper than the "free" cars they are using now?


Anythings possible, and I'm in no way an advocate of the way tech startups have chosen to do business, just trying to answer the "why" they do what they do...


----------



## Rat

RightTurnClyde said:


> Anythings possible, and I'm in no way an advocate of the way tech startups have chosen to do business, just trying to answer the "why" they do what they do...


Uber isn't a "tech" startup. They sell transportation. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has paid a single cent for their app. Tech companies, say Microsoft, sell an item, tho possibly expensive to produce the first piece, cost very little to duplicate millions of times. Uber's product, transportation, has a substantial cost to provide every single time. The "economies of scale" don't exist here.


----------



## RightTurnClyde

Rat said:


> Uber isn't a "tech" startup. They sell transportation. Nobody, and I mean nobody, has paid a single cent for their app. Tech companies, say Microsoft, sell an item, tho possibly expensive to produce the first piece, cost very little to duplicate millions of times. Uber's product, transportation, has a substantial cost to provide every single time. The "economies of scale" don't exist here.


Umm, the substantial cost to provide transportation is provided for by YOU not Uber.


----------



## Karl Marx

RightTurnClyde said:


> I think a lot of confusion on this subject is because new startups operate differently than in the traditional sense.
> 
> For example, take an established company like in manufactured goods (traditional). In this case, if they try to grab marketshare, things don't work out, eventually they lose a lot of money because the cost of their operations doesn't match their revenues. Things are simply never going to get better, and it makes sense to call it quits.
> 
> Uber on the other hand, is losing billions because Uber by its own direction chooses to lose billions at this time. I know it's hard to contemplate (and yes it most certainly can fail), but growth above all else is what ubers engine runs on. In companies like these, their operations costs grow much more slowly than the size of their business, but their revenue directly depend on that size. For instance, a software tech company doesn't need to spend 1000 times more in resources if their user base goes from 1000 to 1 million; contrary to our manufacturer from above that would have to buy materials etc. to cover a lot of demand.
> 
> Therefore, fast growing startups spend a lot of money on GROWTH at a loss if needed because size means more revenue, but not higher cost. In other words, if a startup grows quickly enough, it multiplies its revenue, but if it doesn't, it can lose it all. Hence the money poured into growth. Eventually if successful, the money spent on growth solidifies and turns into a steady source of revenue.
> 
> This is why uber is in the red. It's not because of mismanagement, or poor business sense, its because it's part of their core strategy.
> 
> If uber wanted, they could stop the guarentees, subsidies, free rides, referrals, etc. at a moments notice and cash in. They choose not to at this time.


Spot on. Micro theory needs to be completely rethought as it pertains to information economy.


----------



## Xylphan

RightTurnClyde said:


> Umm, the substantial cost to provide transportation is provided for by YOU not Uber.


Yep. Every single driver subsidizes Uber. They collect a heft chunk of the fee while you pay the expenses (out of your own pocket).

Uber provides information, or more accurately they provide a service. They do not provide transportation. You do.


----------



## Just one more trip

It is hard to know who is dumber, the talking head reporters or the living the high life CEO. 
One knows how to read a teleprompter, and
the other knows how to lose investor's money.


----------



## Xylphan

Just one more trip said:


> It is hard to know who is dumber, the talking head reporters or the living the high life CEO.


Are you kidding me? The CEO is freakin' brilliant. He managed to create and market a business that has people paying him money hand over fist for the opportunity to be screwed over. You can't do that if your stupid.

He's an ***hole and a sociopath, but not stupid.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

m1a1mg said:


> I can't find anywhere that I said penniless. Do try to keep up.


Ah - thought I was replying to this.


> Many pre-IPO companies reward their top people with stock options.


First, 'many' has nothing to do with Uber or Kalanick. Uber is not exactly the typical start-up. Second Kalanick is not new to the start-up, VC or financing games - having been through it at least twice before.


> The software guys making $135k in SF ain't rich. By any stretch.


 That was my point... they're also nowhere near the 'top'.


> I think if you knew anything you wouldn't be posting here. And don't be that little twerp who tries to put things in a post that no one ever wrote. I don't think the big shots at Uber are "living paycheck to paycheck", but if they are like many tech startups, the stock options are where the money waits.


lol... yeah... "if they are like many tech startups..." , except we know they are not like many start-ups. They are, in fact, not like any start-up in history. And, in fact, seven years in, are no longer a "start-up", but rather has a valuation larger than most companies in the world:









(and the latest numbers have Uber's valuation 10% higher)


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Rat said:


> Only by taking on a new big expense. They don't get those self driving cars for free


Not sure you understand: They get our cars for free right now. There's nothing to say they won't get those self-driving cars for free in much the same way. Hertz and other global fleet management companies are drooling at the idea of getting closer to 100% utilization out of their cars.


----------



## rembrandt

Let us see an empirical evidence first. Let uber replace the whole fleet of human drivers with autonomous vehicle in a single US city like San Fransisco , CA. If they can do it, good luck to them. Otherwise, this is just another Uber manufactured snake oil for the investors.


----------



## Xylphan

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Not sure you understand: They get our cars for free right now. There's nothing to say they won't get those self-driving cars for free in much the same way. Hertz and other global fleet management companies are drooling at the idea of getting closer to 100% utilization out of their cars.


Why would Hertz et al. bother to utilize Uber with their own autonomous cars? Uber provides nothing but a data service. Hertz already has all the necessary mechanisms in place for running and maintaining a fleet of vehicles. The tech behind the Uber application isn't exactly rocket science. I can't see any reason why the big rental companies would bother wasting money on Uber when they already have the information and means to have their own.

What works on the masses of "independent contractors" isn't going to work on big well established businesses. You're not going to snow job Hertz/Alliance/etc.


----------



## Rick N.

uberdriverfornow said:


> Uber is ATLEAST 4 times cheaper than a cab. They can double the prices right now, be atleast 2 times cheaper than a cab, and NOT SEE ANY DROP OFF WHATSOEVER FROM RIDERSHIP. And Lyft would do the same damn thing because there is no competition whatsoever.
> 
> The prices are BELOW market equlibrium, and have been since their inception.
> 
> But they don't want to. They want to keep losing money.


They'll raise the fares once they've gotten rid of all these greedy drivers they have driving for them.


----------



## Rat

RightTurnClyde said:


> Umm, the substantial cost to provide transportation is provided for by YOU not Uber.


Do we not get 75% of the fare?


----------



## Rat

RightTurnClyde said:


> I think a lot of confusion on this subject is because new startups operate differently than in the traditional sense.
> 
> For example, take an established company like in manufactured goods (traditional). In this case, if they try to grab marketshare, things don't work out, eventually they lose a lot of money because the cost of their operations doesn't match their revenues. Things are simply never going to get better, and it makes sense to call it quits.
> 
> Uber on the other hand, is losing billions because Uber by its own direction chooses to lose billions at this time. I know it's hard to contemplate (and yes it most certainly can fail), but growth above all else is what ubers engine runs on. In companies like these, their operations costs grow much more slowly than the size of their business, but their revenue directly depend on that size. For instance, a software tech company doesn't need to spend 1000 times more in resources if their user base goes from 1000 to 1 million; contrary to our manufacturer from above that would have to buy materials etc. to cover a lot of demand.
> 
> Therefore, fast growing startups spend a lot of money on GROWTH at a loss if needed because size means more revenue, but not higher cost. In other words, if a startup grows quickly enough, it multiplies its revenue, but if it doesn't, it can lose it all. Hence the money poured into growth. Eventually if successful, the money spent on growth solidifies and turns into a steady source of revenue.
> 
> This is why uber is in the red. It's not because of mismanagement, or poor business sense, its because it's part of their core strategy.
> 
> If uber wanted, they could stop the guarentees, subsidies, free rides, referrals, etc. at a moments notice and cash in. They choose not to at this time.


Uber's costs grow just as fast as their market. They're not Microsoft printing CDs for $0.25 that they sell for $300.00. Right now, they pay the drivers 75% plus incentives of the fare. They are losing money because of the incentives. Without the incentives, they can't get enough drivers. You keep claiming Uber is a technology company. They are not.


----------



## Rat

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Not sure you understand: They get our cars for free right now. There's nothing to say they won't get those self-driving cars for free in much the same way. Hertz and other global fleet management companies are drooling at the idea of getting closer to 100% utilization out of their cars.


They don't get our cars for free. They pay us so much that they are losing money. If you had ever rented a car, you would know they aren't free, either. Even when they're parked. Ask yourself this question, why would Hertz need Uber? Aren't they already in the business of providing individual transportation?


----------



## Rat

Rick N. said:


> They'll raise the fares once they've gotten rid of all these greedy drivers they have driving for them.


And lose most of their riders


----------



## m1a1mg

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Ah - thought I was replying to this.
> First, 'many' has nothing to do with Uber or Kalanick. Uber is not exactly the typical start-up. Second Kalanick is not new to the start-up, VC or financing games - having been through it at least twice before. That was my point... they're also nowhere near the 'top'.lol... yeah... "if they are like many tech startups..." , except we know they are not like many start-ups. They are, in fact, not like any start-up in history. And, in fact, seven years in, are no longer a "start-up", but rather has a valuation larger than most companies in the world:
> 
> (and the latest numbers have Uber's valuation 10% higher)


You can't write checks on valuation.


----------



## Xylphan

Rat said:


> Uber's costs grow just as fast as their market. They're not Microsoft printing CDs for $0.25 that they sell for $300.00. Right now, they pay the drivers 75% plus incentives of the fare. They are losing money because of the incentives. Without the incentives, they can't get enough drivers. You keep claiming Uber is a technology company. They are not.


No, they're losing money because they don't know how to manage cash flow. The average driver is making minimum wage or less at the end of the day. Uber pays no benefits, nor do they have any expenses involved with maintaining a fleet of vehicles.

Uber also does not pay their drivers 75% of the fare either. Depending on where you are, Uber's cut can be quite a bit more. Let's say you work in an are with a guaranteed minimum of $5 for a fair. Minus Uber's cut and their booking fee, you're only going to see $3 of that. That's 40% going to Uber, not 25%. In most areas it's not even worth it driving unless there's a guarantee or a surge running.

Yet in spite of that they're still losing money hand over fist. That's pure mismanagement. They certainly can't cut driver rates any lower; even the most ignorant would start questioning them then.


----------



## Karl Marx

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Not sure you understand: They get our cars for free right now. There's nothing to say they won't get those self-driving cars for free in much the same way. Hertz and other global fleet management companies are drooling at the idea of getting closer to 100% utilization out of their cars.


Marshall McLuhan, said "All hardware becomes software." Travis is no fool and no doubt has read much of McLuhan's work. The autonomous technology race is on and as important as was the race to put satellites into orbit. The most important part of transportation won't be the vehicles themselves but rather the brains of autonomous navigation systems. The legacy of the data that Uber has already collected gives them a head start in geospatial mapping of all the cities where they operate. Should Uber be first to market, it could conceivably dictate the design of the vehicles they will accept as partners. These vehicles might not even be traditional 4 door sedans. They could be of a completely different design and could rival and or disinter-mediate out public transit. Along with their technology they could also strong arm their way on to city streets even before these systems are full proof.


----------



## RightTurnClyde

Rat said:


> Uber's costs grow just as fast as their market. They're not Microsoft printing CDs for $0.25 that they sell for $300.00. Right now, they pay the drivers 75% plus incentives of the fare. They are losing money because of the incentives. Without the incentives, they can't get enough drivers. You keep claiming Uber is a technology company. They are not.


Even better they only make and support 1 app, then distribute it across the world while making 20-25% or more of every fare plus booking fee through YOUR hard work.

No one is arguing they aren't burning through cash or disputing that this business model might fail (you should read or reread all posts from the beginning).

"Tech companies" are companies that provide a service through technology or provide such services as a key part of its business. Does it matter? Come on guy geez...


----------



## Rat

Xylphan said:


> No, they're losing money because they don't know how to manage cash flow. The average driver is making minimum wage or less at the end of the day. Uber pays no benefits, nor do they have any expenses involved with maintaining a fleet of vehicles.
> 
> Uber also does not pay their drivers 75% of the fare either. Depending on where you are, Uber's cut can be quite a bit more. Let's say you work in an are with a guaranteed minimum of $5 for a fair. Minus Uber's cut and their booking fee, you're only going to see $3 of that. That's 40% going to Uber, not 25%. In most areas it's not even worth it driving unless there's a guarantee or a surge running.
> 
> Yet in spite of that they're still losing money hand over fist. That's pure mismanagement. They certainly can't cut driver rates any lower; even the most ignorant would start questioning them then.


Costs are more than revenue. Putting a label on it (mismanagement) doesn't change that. What an Uber driver makes hourly is immaterial, it still costs them more than they take in. They have continued to lower rates throughout their entire history. Nitpicking the commission percentage for a selected instance does negate that even at the most favorable instance, 60% still goes to the vehicle. The point was their costs still scale the same as their market. You completely ignored it.


----------



## Rat

RightTurnClyde said:


> Even better they only make and support 1 app, then distribute it across the world while making 20-25% or more of every fare plus booking fee through YOUR hard work.
> 
> No one is arguing they aren't burning through cash or disputing that this business model might fail (you should read or reread all posts from the beginning).
> 
> "Tech companies" are companies that provide a service through technology or provide such services as a key part of its business. Does it matter? Come on guy geez...


The app doesn't get you from point A to point B. Selling technology is what makes you a tech company. Uber sells transportation. Nobody is paying for the $200 app.3


----------



## backstreets-trans

Xylphan said:


> Why would Hertz et al. bother to utilize Uber with their own autonomous cars? Uber provides nothing but a data service. Hertz already has all the necessary mechanisms in place for running and maintaining a fleet of vehicles. The tech behind the Uber application isn't exactly rocket science. I can't see any reason why the big rental companies would bother wasting money on Uber when they already have the information and means to have their own.
> 
> What works on the masses of "independent contractors" isn't going to work on big well established businesses. You're not going to snow job Hertz/Alliance/etc.


This is my exact line of thinking. The auto companies will cut both out of the equation and start their own app. Consumer can pick what type of car (make and model). Each major car manufacturer will have an app.


----------



## Rat

It costs less to write an app than to build just one car


----------



## jack badly

watch @ 1:30

self driving is still at infancy stage. wtf was that.


----------



## andaas

jack badly said:


> watch @ 1:30
> 
> self driving is still at infancy stage. wtf was that.


Tesla is obviously having trouble working out the issues with the cars suffering from chronic depression. Several of their cars seem to be living unfulfilling lives and, when given the opportunity, are attempting to commit suicide.


----------



## Xylphan

Rat said:


> Costs are more than revenue. Putting a label on it (mismanagement) doesn't change that. What an Uber driver makes hourly is immaterial, it still costs them more than they take in. They have continued to lower rates throughout their entire history. Nitpicking the commission percentage for a selected instance does negate that even at the most favorable instance, 60% still goes to the vehicle. The point was their costs still scale the same as their market. You completely ignored it.


No, I didn't ignore it. You don't seem to understand how Uber works.

Uber does not sell transportation. They don't. Either literally or legally. They're a contracting agency. They provide a service the links independent contractors that provide transportation to buyers who require their services. For providing this contracting service, Uber takes a cut of the fares contractors get.

Along those lines, Uber doesn't pay drivers either. There is no wage involved. Drivers are independent contractors who agree to give Uber a cut of the fares they make in return for providing their contracting service. The riders pay the drivers, not Uber. However, as part of the contract agreement drivers make with Uber, they give Uber sole discretion on setting the rates and the percentage they take from rider fares. Therefore, Uber is in complete control of their revenue stream.

Any profit or loss has nothing to do with paying drivers and everything to do with how Uber is managing their revenue and internal costs. The drivers cost practically nothing. A background check, a database entry, and maybe an occasional insurance claim.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Xylphan said:


> Why would Hertz et al. bother to utilize Uber with their own autonomous cars?


Because Hertz/National/Enterprise/Budget, etc. are experts at vehicle acquisition and fleet management, 
while the TNCs are experts at development, marketing, and consumer interfacing of the consumer ordering, billing and collection processes (not to mention the distribution of services to consumers).


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

rembrandt said:


> Let us see an empirical evidence first. Let uber replace the whole fleet of human drivers with autonomous vehicle in a single US city like San Fransisco , CA. If they can do it, good luck to them. Otherwise, this is just another Uber manufactured snake oil for the investors.


Why would they have to have a 100% autonomous fleet? Who's to say that it has to be all one or the other?
You seriously can't envision a consumer having the option to order a self-driving vehicle at one price level - or a human piloted vehicle at a different price point?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Rat said:


> They don't get our cars for free. They pay us so much that they are losing money.


I'm afraid that's not correct. Read your driver agreement: Uber does not pay you. The client pays you and then you pay Uber. Uber just acts as the third party conduit for the payments that are made from the rider to the driver. Both rider and driver are customers of Uber.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

m1a1mg said:


> You can't write checks on valuation.


You can when that valuation brings in $ of investment, as well as loans/debt. If you couldn't write checks because of your valuation and the investment it attracts, then a company could not operate at a loss as it grows - it would be bankrupt.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Karl Marx said:


> Marshall McLuhan, said "All hardware becomes software." Travis is no fool and no doubt has read much of McLuhan's work. The autonomous technology race is on and as important as was the race to put satellites into orbit. The most important part of transportation won't be the vehicles themselves but rather the brains of autonomous navigation systems. The legacy of the data that Uber has already collected gives them a head start in geospatial mapping of all the cities where they operate. Should Uber be first to market, it could conceivably dictate the design of the vehicles they will accept as partners. These vehicles might not even be traditional 4 door sedans. They could be of a completely different design and could rival and or disinter-mediate out public transit. Along with their technology they could also strong arm their way on to city streets even before these systems are full proof.


yup... of course there's also a difference between the 'bleeding edge' and the 'cutting edge'. Right now Uber is on the bleeding edge - and it would not be surprising to see it go under after having paid the price for the learning curve that a newcomer to the industry would be able to take advantage of. Enter, JUNO?


----------



## Aging Prius

Rat said:


> They may be decimating the competition, but they're only doing so by operating at a loss.


Sounds like the old joke about the car dealer selling cars at a loss..."I lose a little on each one, but I make it up in volume."


----------



## Xylphan

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Because Hertz/National/Enterprise/Budget, etc. are experts at vehicle acquisition and fleet management,
> while the TNCs are experts at development, marketing, and consumer interfacing of the consumer ordering, billing and collection processes (not to mention the distribution of services to consumers).


That's not accurate. Rental companies have been marketing and serving customers for year. They have an online presence, apps, deals with third party travel providers, so on and so forth that has been built up over decades. All this and they own and maintain their own fleet of vehicles. They already have pieces in place to handle autonomous vehicles once they become economically viable.

Uber is a contracting service. They don't bring anything to the table for rental companies. Their business model is competitive to rental companies, not complimentary.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Xylphan said:


> That's not accurate. Rental companies have been marketing and serving customers for year. They have an online presence, apps, deals with third party travel providers, so on and so forth that has been built up over decades. All this and they own and maintain their own fleet of vehicles. They already have pieces in place to handle autonomous vehicles once they become economically viable.
> 
> Uber is a contracting service. They don't bring anything to the table for rental companies. Their business model is competitive to rental companies, not complimentary.


Ever rent a car?
Takes about 20 to 45 minutes per my experience.
Hertz sales process is extremely inefficient.
The one area I give props to Uber is;
They push a button, the sale is complete.
Hertz doesn't have that.


----------



## Xylphan

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Ever rent a car?
> Takes about 20 to 45 minutes per my experience.
> Hertz sales process is extremely inefficient.
> The one area I give props to Uber is;
> They push a button, the sale is complete.
> Hertz doesn't have that.


Haven't used Hertz recently. I rented from National on my last trip. No wait. You basically just show up and go.


----------



## Just one more trip

Xylphan said:


> Are you kidding me? The CEO is freakin' brilliant. He managed to create and market a business that has people paying him money hand over fist for the opportunity to be screwed over. You can't do that if your stupid.
> 
> He's an ***hole and a sociopath, but not stupid.


I read in a Good Book that it is not smart to sell your soul for the riches of the world.


----------



## rembrandt

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Why would they have to have a 100% autonomous fleet? Who's to say that it has to be all one or the other?
> You seriously can't envision a consumer having the option to order a self-driving vehicle at one price level - or a human piloted vehicle at a different price point?


We are not talking about general consumers but Uber who wants to make greater profit margins by replacing the drivers.


----------



## Xylphan

rembrandt said:


> We are not talking about general consumers but Uber who wants to make greater profit margins by replacing the drivers.


Uber doesn't pay drivers. They collect fees from what drivers make. They also don't pay for vehicles, maintenance, etc. If they eliminate the drivers, they can get 100% of the fare, but they also have to pay for 100% of costs associated with acquiring and maintaining a fleet of vehicles, including covering all aspects of insurance and taxes.

So the real question is, will the overall long term cost of buying and maintaining an autonomous vehicle be so low that Uber can still match or increase their effective profit compared to their current model while still meeting demand? The answer isn't as clear cut as one might think.


----------



## rembrandt

Xylphan said:


> Uber doesn't pay drivers. They collect fees from what drivers make. They also don't pay for vehicles, maintenance, etc. If they eliminate the drivers, they can get 100% of the fare, but they also have to pay for 100% of costs associated with acquiring and maintaining a fleet of vehicles, including covering all aspects of insurance and taxes.
> 
> So the real question is, will the overall long term cost of buying and maintaining an autonomous vehicle be so low that Uber can still match or increase their effective profit compared to their current model while still meeting demand? The answer isn't as clear cut as one might think.


I agree. There is another question involving the status of the assumed new business model with the autonomous vehicles. Can the new model still be called 'ride sharing'or will it be considered as taxi service ? If it is considered as taxi service , the existing restrictions on the number of operationsl taxi will apply.

I still believe that the autonomous vehicle hypothesis has more to do with drawing additional investors to absorb massive losses until IPO opens up. That applies to both Ford , GM and Uber.

No one made more R&D works in that sector than Google based on publicly available Information and yet , no google 'production vehicle' is available.


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

Gung-Ho said:


> I went to my bible for the cliff notes Wikipedia.
> 
> Not exactly glowing reviews.


Probably because Thiel keeps things very abstract. Enough as to allow himself to follow advice he received and then conveys by quoting the originator, Goethe:

The few who knew what might be learned,
Foolish enough to put their whole heart on show,
And reveal their feelings to the crowd below,
Mankind has always crucified and burned.​Which makes sense. Thiel is a Republican-leaning gay man who is comfortable in the "culture" of Silicon Valley and knows that any of those traits means he has to watch his behin'ney from all directions.


----------



## run26912

RightTurnClyde said:


> LOL??? Consider...
> 
> You know who was losing massive amounts of money before they were bought; YouTube! Similarly, Amazon took years and years and to come out of the red! Why is that...????
> 
> Uber and many other startups have adopted a strategy to keep prices artificially low to get themselves deep into valued markets "gaining market share" (i.e. by losing money). That builds a large customer base that not only uses their services but eventually relies upon on it (very important).
> 
> Secondly, uber has a seemingly steady flow of venture capitol at this time from deep pocketed individuals and even nation states which still amazes me (i.e. financing from the outside thus not needing to rely on internal profit). If they succeed, they then can change tactics after running everyone else out of business and snowball this into real actual hard cash and profit (the plan)!
> 
> As I mentioned in my previous post, there's a bigger picture to look at and ubers huge losses are calculated losses towards a bigger gain. I'm in no way suggesting that this tactic will work (I hope it doesn't), and Travis may well be the the greatest con man of all time (time will tell). In spite of this, relying on earnings reports now, to infer that ubers boat is starting to sink or is a losing venture is shortsighted and not worth writing about except for generating headlines.


What you are ASSUMING UBer is doing is wrong. At best a PUBLICLY traded company may try your strategy, but UBER is NOT a public company yet. Showing those red losses does NOTHING to help UBER except to panic the existing bagholder investors. They are NOT PURPOSELY SHOWING LOSSES.. that's insanely STUPID for a company that has yet gone public. Ironically, they seem to want to start using non-GAAP numbers already.

Uber has NOTHING proprietary. It has NO TANGIBLE ASSETS. It is NOT AMAZON. Don't get it twisted.

BONG!!


----------



## GooberX

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Not sure you understand: They get our cars for free right now. There's nothing to say they won't get those self-driving cars for free in much the same way. Hertz and other global fleet management companies are drooling at the idea of getting closer to 100% utilization out of their cars.


Stupidest thing I ever heard.


----------



## CrazyTaxi

ExpendableAsset said:


> I would really like to see this driverless car expense model these knuckleheads have concocted. I honestly do not believe it will be cheaper for Uber at all. Uber will have to own and maintain this massive fleet, and I do not think Travis is going to be down in his flip flops and swim trunks washing cars and doing oil changes at one of the thousands of shops (which will cost money) which Uber will have either buy or pay to operate in order to maintain the cars. I am truly skeptic.


Uber wont need a fleet if they do this:

https://uberpeople.net/threads/driverless-cars-may-be-like-owning-a-redbox.99633/

I don't know how it will work with cutting up the pie, but surely Uber isn't trying to own all the vehicles it puts on the streets.


----------



## RightTurnClyde

run26912 said:


> What you are ASSUMING UBer is doing is wrong.


 Then why are they doing it? You offer no opposing scenario. With all due respect, give us something tangible to discuss beyond feeling.



run26912 said:


> At best a PUBLICLY traded company may try your strategy, but UBER is NOT a public company yet. Showing those red losses does NOTHING to help UBER except to panic the existing bagholder investors.


 What would change if it's either public or private? Why would a publicly traded company benefit better from this strategy? I know what my answer would be to this question, but where's yours? Don't tell us, explain it to us, so we then can discuss your opinion and thinking openly please.

Possibly panicking some investors; agreed yes a real possibility. Additionally, no one will argue that losses help a company, but many companies have and will operate at a loss now under what they determine as providing the greater benefit for them in the future.



run26912 said:


> They are NOT PURPOSELY SHOWING LOSSES.. that's insanely STUPID for a company that has yet gone public. Ironically, they seem to want to start using non-GAAP numbers already.


Again, if it's insanely stupid, then why are they conducting business at a loss???? I've tried (right or wrong) to give and support my opinion on the matter. Out of 7 pages of posts the only other answer so far presented is stupidity and mismanagement. If it's so easy to explain by this metric, why hasn't some of the leading and well/known experts at uber with their reputations on the line done anything about it? Why are they continuing on the same course and way of business at a loss??



run26912 said:


> Uber has NOTHING proprietary. It has NO TANGIBLE ASSETS.


Great point, which is EXACTLY why uber focuses on increasing marketshare, at great cost to themselves.

BING !!


----------



## run26912

RightTurnClyde said:


> Then why are they doing it? You offer no opposing scenario or reason, just opinion. Give us something tangible to discuss beyond feeling.
> 
> What would change if it's either public or private? Why would a publicly traded company benefit better from this strategy? I know what my answer would be to this question, but where's yours? Don't tell us, explain it to us, so we then can discuss your opinion and thinking openly please.
> 
> Possibly panicking some investors; agreed yes a real possibility. Additionally, no one will argue that losses help a company, but many companies have and will operate at a loss now under what they determine as providing the greater benefit for them in the future.
> 
> Again, if it's insanely stupid, then why are they conducting business at a loss???? I've tried (right or wrong) to give and support my opinion on the matter. Out of 7 pages of posts the only other answer so far presented is stupidity and mismanagement. If it's so easy to explain by this metric, why hasn't some of the leading and well/known experts at uber with their reputations on the line done anything about it? Why are they continuing on the same course and way of business at a loss??
> 
> Great point, which is EXACTLY why uber focuses on increasing marketshare, at great cost to themselves.
> 
> BING !!


The whole point is that Uber is GROSSLY mismanaged. They are losing money hand over fist because of the incompetence of management and crappy business model. Marketshare may mean something IF their drivers didn't have a 40% turnover rate because they are pissed at Uber and customers are conditioned to jump to the next rideshare company offering a cheaper rate. The point is Uber is out of control, so they do the next best thing.. control all the privately held shares, meaning no one can sell or transfer shares to anyone except back to the company at whatever price they deem. Investors are basically trapped HOSTAGE with a phone $65 billion valuation (which is complete make believe since there is ABSOLUTELY NO LIQUIDITY IN THE SHARES except BACK TO THE COMPANY). There is nothing that says Uber's model in REALITY has to succeed, infact, reality is showing that while the gameplan may seem sound, the novelty has worn off and the execution is DREADFULLY POOR. Uber has been in a race to the BOTTOM against LYFT and competitors without understanding the ramifications of conditioning pax to lower prices and drivers to hate their bait-n-switch, template policies. Uber spends so much on marketing to drivers because it's retention rate is so poor... why is that? Because they constantly screw them over.

Let's be clear. Uber has not publicly shown their numbers. We don't know the full gory details of how bad their losses are. The - $1.2 billion losses for first half of the year is what Uber decided to disclose. None of this stuff is fully audited like 10-Q. However, when Uber finally decides to come clean in the S-1 filing, the public is finally get a glimpse of how poor their management is... this is why they didn't IPO during the initial 'Unicorn' hype... Uber is just trying to build up hype on the autonomous vehicle theme.. which will be dead years before it even becomes an everyday reality. Before you ask "how do you know that?", simple... it's called history. Read up on the Gartner Hype cycle and then checkthe history of stocks like DDD, SSYS (3D printing) , JUNO, BLUE (Immunotherapy), FSLR (solar), etc. The list of broken hype cycle stocks is endless. Uber will miss 2 opportunities to IPO. One last point, most technology companies that run the hyper growth now and profits later model DON'T have to worry about the risk of an ever changing regulatory environment. Uber on the other hand is in an industry that is starting to see local, state and federal regulation and extortion (taxes and fees) implementation constantly and growing. There are TWO things you don't want to fight as part of your business model... God and Government. Ask Microsoft about the government part in the 90s. Even Google learned its lesson.

As for the strategy described in the article of compromising sales growth over profits initially to gain marketshare, that has worked in the past for many tech firms, just look at NetFlix, same model. However, Uber is no Netflix. Apples and oranges. It's not even a tech company in my book. Seriously? A technology company with ONE APP... that every gig economy startup has a similar copy of. Uber has a patent pending.. hahaha. Who will they license that APP to anyway? Lyft, Juno? Sorry, they already have their version. Adobe is a technology company. Intuit is a technology company. Oracle is a technology company. They have MORE than ONE SINGLE APP or piece of software. . Uber is a quasi transit support mom n pop operation with no assets. They have nothing more than a BRAND NAME... which is losing its luster by the day in the eyes of INVESTORS, DRIVERS and even customers.

Netflix has 28 million subscribers and went from middleman content distributor to content creator and network. Netflix has tangible assets, solid execution and growing base of customers. Look at Twitter, that's an example of a company where it backfired as the company still loses tons of money and got PUNISHED from $75/share trying to get over on investors with their phony non-GAAP revenue and supposed INCOME numbers. The markets PUNISHED TWTR stock down to low teens. There is a difference between a PUBLIC COMPANY and Private Company. If Uber were a Public Company, it's stock would take the SAME trajectory as TWTR. Study up a bit on this before you make assumptions.

All the "Why hasn't Uber..." questions in your rebuttal IS THE POINT. They are INCOMPETENT. YES. It exists. Look at TWTR. Also, I have to give Travis credit for ONE THING... he was able to secure himself as a permanent CEO and maintain control of the shares. I'm sure he took a page from Sergey and Larry Page (GOOGL) with giving himself special class of shares carrying multiple voting rights. Apparently the common share class has NONE. That's my 2 cents.

BONG!!!


----------



## run26912

run26912 said:


> The whole point is that Uber is GROSSLY mismanaged. They are losing money hand over fist because of the incompetence of management and crappy business model. Marketshare may mean something IF their drivers didn't have a 40% turnover rate because they are pissed at Uber and customers are conditioned to jump to the next rideshare company offering a cheaper rate. The point is Uber is out of control, so they do the next best thing.. control all the privately held shares, meaning no one can sell or transfer shares to anyone except back to the company at whatever price they deem. Investors are basically trapped HOSTAGE with a phone $65 billion valuation (which is complete make believe since there is ABSOLUTELY NO LIQUIDITY IN THE SHARES except BACK TO THE COMPANY). There is nothing that says Uber's model in REALITY has to succeed, infact, reality is showing that while the gameplan may seem sound, the novelty has worn off and the execution is DREADFULLY POOR. Uber has been in a race to the BOTTOM against LYFT and competitors without understanding the ramifications of conditioning pax to lower prices and drivers to hate their bait-n-switch, template policies. Uber spends so much on marketing to drivers because it's retention rate is so poor... why is that? Because they constantly screw them over.
> 
> Let's be clear. Uber has not publicly shown their numbers. We don't know the full gory details of how bad their losses are. The - $1.2 billion losses for first half of the year is what Uber decided to disclose. None of this stuff is fully audited like 10-Q. However, when Uber finally decides to come clean in the S-1 filing, the public is finally get a glimpse of how poor their management is... this is why they didn't IPO during the initial 'Unicorn' hype... Uber is just trying to build up hype on the autonomous vehicle theme.. which will be dead years before it even becomes an everyday reality. Before you ask "how do you know that?", simple... it's called history. Read up on the Gartner Hype cycle and then checkthe history of stocks like DDD, SSYS (3D printing) , JUNO, BLUE (Immunotherapy), FSLR (solar), etc. The list of broken hype cycle stocks is endless. Uber will miss 2 opportunities to IPO. One last point, most technology companies that run the hyper growth now and profits later model DON'T have to worry about the risk of an ever changing regulatory environment. Uber on the other hand is in an industry that is starting to see local, state and federal regulation and extortion (taxes and fees) implementation constantly and growing. There are TWO things you don't want to fight as part of your business model... God and Government. Ask Microsoft about the government part in the 90s. Even Google learned its lesson.
> 
> As for the strategy described in the article of compromising sales growth over profits initially to gain marketshare, that has worked in the past for many tech firms, just look at NetFlix, same model. However, Uber is no Netflix. Apples and oranges. It's not even a tech company in my book. Seriously? A technology company with ONE APP... that every gig economy startup has a similar copy of. Uber has a patent pending.. hahaha. Who will they license that APP to anyway? Lyft, Juno? Sorry, they already have their version. Adobe is a technology company. Intuit is a technology company. Oracle is a technology company. They have MORE than ONE SINGLE APP or piece of software. . Uber is a quasi transit support mom n pop operation with no assets. They have nothing more than a BRAND NAME... which is losing its luster by the day in the eyes of INVESTORS, DRIVERS and even customers.
> 
> Netflix has 28 million subscribers and went from middleman content distributor to content creator and network. Netflix has tangible assets, solid execution and growing base of customers. Look at Twitter, that's an example of a company where it backfired as the company still loses tons of money and got PUNISHED from $75/share trying to get over on investors with their phony non-GAAP revenue and supposed INCOME numbers. The markets PUNISHED TWTR stock down to low teens. There is a difference between a PUBLIC COMPANY and Private Company. If Uber were a Public Company, it's stock would take the SAME trajectory as TWTR. Study up a bit on this before you make assumptions.
> 
> All the "Why hasn't Uber..." questions in your rebuttal IS THE POINT. They are INCOMPETENT. YES. It exists. Look at TWTR. Also, I have to give Travis credit for ONE THING... he was able to secure himself as a permanent CEO and maintain control of the shares. I'm sure he took a page from Sergey and Larry Page (GOOGL) with giving himself special class of shares carrying multiple voting rights. Apparently the common share class has NONE. That's my 2 cents.
> 
> BONG!!!


One last point. There was an article someone posted about how Uber's biggest reason for losses is the drivers. Bwahahaha. Without drivers, there is no Uber. But if drivers are the reason they are losing so much money, then the model is flawed... look up PARASITIC CASTRATION. That is the model that Uber is running right now... right into the toilet. Name another company where it's workforce has a 40% turnaround and is constantly suing the company... and frankly feels screwed on a daily basis. How is that a sustainable model financially and morally? It isn't. The notion of a personalized mass transit system of autonomous cars is light years away from execution nevermind profitability. Show me a metro or transit system that is profitable? Take that and extrapolate it a million times and tell me if its still profitable. Uber's vision is a personalized autonomous mass transit system that wants to bypass regulation, costs Uber no expenses for fuel or maintenance and will boost its stock price to the moon... keep dreaming.

Someone explain to me the logic behind Uber leaving Austin, TX, because they didn't want to fingerprint their drivers... and in doing so, they left 10,000 drivers high and dry with NO WARNING. That's not business sense, that's arrogance. That arrogance is a cancer embedded in the heart of the company and the heart can't be removed (not legally)... that is Travis.

BONG!!!


----------



## run26912

Karl Marx said:


> Marshall McLuhan, said "All hardware becomes software." Travis is no fool and no doubt has read much of McLuhan's work. The autonomous technology race is on and as important as was the race to put satellites into orbit. The most important part of transportation won't be the vehicles themselves but rather the brains of autonomous navigation systems. The legacy of the data that Uber has already collected gives them a head start in geospatial mapping of all the cities where they operate. Should Uber be first to market, it could conceivably dictate the design of the vehicles they will accept as partners. These vehicles might not even be traditional 4 door sedans. They could be of a completely different design and could rival and or disinter-mediate out public transit. Along with their technology they could also strong arm their way on to city streets even before these systems are full proof.


Sure.. all they have to do next is ban humanoids from owning cars.. since they are the one's that get into accidents. Lol.

BONG!!


----------



## Karl Marx

run26912 said:


> The whole point is that Uber is GROSSLY mismanaged. They are losing money hand over fist because of the incompetence of management and crappy business model. Marketshare may mean something IF their drivers didn't have a 40% turnover rate because they are pissed at Uber and customers are conditioned to jump to the next rideshare company offering a cheaper rate. The point is Uber is out of control, so they do the next best thing.. control all the privately held shares, meaning no one can sell or transfer shares to anyone except back to the company at whatever price they deem. Investors are basically trapped HOSTAGE with a phone $65 billion valuation (which is complete make believe since there is ABSOLUTELY NO LIQUIDITY IN THE SHARES except BACK TO THE COMPANY). There is nothing that says Uber's model in REALITY has to succeed, infact, reality is showing that while the gameplan may seem sound, the novelty has worn off and the execution is DREADFULLY POOR. Uber has been in a race to the BOTTOM against LYFT and competitors without understanding the ramifications of conditioning pax to lower prices and drivers to hate their bait-n-switch, template policies. Uber spends so much on marketing to drivers because it's retention rate is so poor... why is that? Because they constantly screw them over.
> 
> Let's be clear. Uber has not publicly shown their numbers. We don't know the full gory details of how bad their losses are. The - $1.2 billion losses for first half of the year is what Uber decided to disclose. None of this stuff is fully audited like 10-Q. However, when Uber finally decides to come clean in the S-1 filing, the public is finally get a glimpse of how poor their management is... this is why they didn't IPO during the initial 'Unicorn' hype... Uber is just trying to build up hype on the autonomous vehicle theme.. which will be dead years before it even becomes an everyday reality. Before you ask "how do you know that?", simple... it's called history. Read up on the Gartner Hype cycle and then checkthe history of stocks like DDD, SSYS (3D printing) , JUNO, BLUE (Immunotherapy), FSLR (solar), etc. The list of broken hype cycle stocks is endless. Uber will miss 2 opportunities to IPO. One last point, most technology companies that run the hyper growth now and profits later model DON'T have to worry about the risk of an ever changing regulatory environment. Uber on the other hand is in an industry that is starting to see local, state and federal regulation and extortion (taxes and fees) implementation constantly and growing. There are TWO things you don't want to fight as part of your business model... God and Government. Ask Microsoft about the government part in the 90s. Even Google learned its lesson.
> 
> As for the strategy described in the article of compromising sales growth over profits initially to gain marketshare, that has worked in the past for many tech firms, just look at NetFlix, same model. However, Uber is no Netflix. Apples and oranges. It's not even a tech company in my book. Seriously? A technology company with ONE APP... that every gig economy startup has a similar copy of. Uber has a patent pending.. hahaha. Who will they license that APP to anyway? Lyft, Juno? Sorry, they already have their version. Adobe is a technology company. Intuit is a technology company. Oracle is a technology company. They have MORE than ONE SINGLE APP or piece of software. . Uber is a quasi transit support mom n pop operation with no assets. They have nothing more than a BRAND NAME... which is losing its luster by the day in the eyes of INVESTORS, DRIVERS and even customers.
> 
> Netflix has 28 million subscribers and went from middleman content distributor to content creator and network. Netflix has tangible assets, solid execution and growing base of customers. Look at Twitter, that's an example of a company where it backfired as the company still loses tons of money and got PUNISHED from $75/share trying to get over on investors with their phony non-GAAP revenue and supposed INCOME numbers. The markets PUNISHED TWTR stock down to low teens. There is a difference between a PUBLIC COMPANY and Private Company. If Uber were a Public Company, it's stock would take the SAME trajectory as TWTR. Study up a bit on this before you make assumptions.
> 
> All the "Why hasn't Uber..." questions in your rebuttal IS THE POINT. They are INCOMPETENT. YES. It exists. Look at TWTR. Also, I have to give Travis credit for ONE THING... he was able to secure himself as a permanent CEO and maintain control of the shares. I'm sure he took a page from Sergey and Larry Page (GOOGL) with giving himself special class of shares carrying multiple voting rights. Apparently the common share class has NONE. That's my 2 cents.
> 
> BONG!!!


A well researched response and yes more than likely some advanced incompetence on the part of Uber. However, in terms of going forward I have no doubt humanity is in for some profound and unwelcomed change when it comes to the nature of work. I would like to further the discussion by citing Paul Romers' paper entitled Endogenous Technological Change 1990 wherein he posits that technology advances were always considered 'exogenous' to microeconomic theory. He changed the economic landscape by saying no to this underlining assumption and that technological change becomes a matter of either need or will. (The PDF is on the JSTOR website, approximately $20.00 and definitely worth your time to read.) The entire theory is being proven correct every hour as computing changes the physical and intellectual landscape. Romers' premise is, 'that instructions for working with raw materials are inherently different from other economic goods.' Google and Uber are creating intellectual products with costs that once been incurred will never be paid for again. Transportation and communications are quickly merging together in a singularity that profoundly changes the entire nature of capitalism. The end goal of Travis and company have everything to do with creating these new robots. Imagine yourself driving in a Google or Uber vehicle with no steering wheel and the computer says, " Karl, in a few moments we'll have some strong crosswinds that might affect you're typing when we go over the next bridge." Having worked in technology where the firm I was working for had to access a new technology, I encountered tremendous amounts of programming and firmware bugs. A few of my colleagues and I were determined to not let it stop us despite the rest of our firm saying it was a lost cause and to give up. We were determined that we would figure out and rewrite the entire code. Much to our delight the inventors and coders believed in our observations and we created a ground breaking digital product. The truly remarkable aspect of software/firmware is that it can completely mimic the real world. The other 'crazy' aspect of the technology was that we were able to turn a flaw into a feature with an enormous benefit to end users. Unfortunately, in creating an autonomous vehicle there will be bugs and my heart goes out to those people that will live through or die because of these unfortunate errors. My confidence in Paul's paper comes from a personal work experience with digital technology and I can only end by saying that society will need to wrestle quickly with the need to discuss how these windfall profits benefit not just a few people but humanity in general. The fallout from the 2008 Great Recession is still with us and if we have learned anything its' that the true problems of the capitalist economy is the lack of demand and not the lack of goods and services. The new info-capitalism economy is moving quickly and will only more grossly distort an obsolete capitalist system. Paul Romer was roundly criticized by his peers and mainstream economists for years but with every new profound change that technology beings it is even more important that we face our technological determinism in ways that benefit the 'greater good'. A winner takes all theology will neither sustain or save the planet. In ending I strongly suggest that Uber has the where with all to at least cover 60 per cent of metered fares be it in NYC, Toronto or London.


----------



## Freebyrdie

rembrandt said:


> We are not talking about general consumers but Uber who wants to make greater profit margins by replacing the drivers.


How on earth can the expense of owning, maintaining and paying for gas in driverless cars EVER be cheaper then using us drivers who pay for all of that and work at slave wages. It doesn't make sense to me. If they really want to increase their profits..raise the rates where they get a bigger percentage instead of offering us bonus money and boosts which pays us more but costs them. Riders will still use uber at a higher rate. As long as it remains less then a taxi fare, riders will ride.


----------



## Freebyrdie

RightTurnClyde said:


> I think a lot of confusion on this subject is because new startups operate differently than in the traditional sense.
> 
> For example, take an established company like in manufactured goods (traditional). In this case, if they try to grab marketshare, things don't work out, eventually they lose a lot of money because the cost of their operations doesn't match their revenues. Things are simply never going to get better, and it makes sense to call it quits.
> 
> Uber on the other hand, is losing billions because Uber by its own direction chooses to lose billions at this time. I know it's hard to contemplate (and yes it most certainly can fail), but growth above all else is what ubers engine runs on. In companies like these, their operations costs grow much more slowly than the size of their business, but their revenue directly depend on that size. For instance, a software tech company doesn't need to spend 1000 times more in resources if their user base goes from 1000 to 1 million; contrary to our manufacturer from above that would have to buy materials etc. to cover a lot of demand.
> 
> Therefore, fast growing startups spend a lot of money on GROWTH at a loss if needed because size means more revenue, but not higher cost. In other words, if a startup grows quickly enough, it multiplies its revenue, but if it doesn't, it can lose it all. Hence the money poured into growth. Eventually if successful, the money spent on growth solidifies and turns into a steady source of revenue.
> 
> This is why uber is in the red. It's not because of mismanagement, or poor business sense, its because it's part of their core strategy.
> 
> If uber wanted, they could stop the guarentees, subsidies, free rides, referrals, etc. at a moments notice and cash in. They choose not to at this time.


They sure are all but ending the bonus and boost monies here in Las Vegas. Wouldn't it be smarter to raise the rates instead so they get a percentage of more instead of the subsidies that cost them?


----------



## Karl Marx

Freebyrdie said:


> How on earth can the expense of owning, maintaining and paying for gas in driverless cars EVER be cheaper then using us drivers who pay for all of that and work at slave wages. It doesn't make sense to me. If they really want to increase their profits..raise the rates where they get a bigger percentage instead of offering us bonus money and boosts which pays us more but costs them. Riders will still use uber at a higher rate. As long as it remains less then a taxi fare, riders will ride.


Drivers will not be part of the internet of things. Humans get tired, they need to be hired or fired. Their just very complicated biology that have an existence that has a slow start and a quick end. What responsible info-capitalist would want to have anything to do with such a complicated liability.
In 1997, Kelly discussed the new foundations of a post-capitalist society, "It is global. It favours intangible things-ideas, information and relationships. And it is intensely interlinked. These three attributes produce a new type of marketplace and society." If you're hoping that Uber will capitulate and pay a man a proper amount even anywhere close to a cab fare than you're in the wrong game. You are for all practical purposes living the life of a digital slave. Unfortunately the American economy has 10 of millions of people behind you that would trade everything to be in your place. We all need to reread Orwell and remember to, "Love Big Brother."


----------



## Freebyrdie

Karl Marx said:


> Drivers will not be part of the internet of things. Humans get tired, they need to be hired or fired. Their just very complicated biology that have an existence that has a slow start and a quick end. What responsible info-capitalist would want to have anything to do with such a complicated liability.
> In 1997, Kelly discussed the new foundations of a post-capitalist society, "It is global. It favours intangible things-ideas, information and relationships. And it is intensely interlinked. These three attributes produce a new type of marketplace and society." If you're hoping that Uber will capitulate and pay a man a proper amount even anywhere close to a cab fare than you're in the wrong game. You are for all practical purposes living the life of a digital slave. Unfortunately the American economy has 10 of millions of people behind you that would trade everything to be in your place.


A post capitalist society? I can't imagine a world where greed, the bottom line being the only line that matters, hunger for power and the constant brainwashing of society to keep buying this or that if you want to be happy replaces those ideals for ideas, information and relationships. The very fabric of the economy is dependent on planned obsolescence so it keeps people buying and money is always the focus. That post capitalist world would require a complete paradigm shift in the minds of man. Not an easy task...maybe they will develope a vaccine for it.


----------



## Karl Marx

WestSubDriver said:


> Interesting to note is that despite fear about how long driver subsidies in the US can last Uber may be breakeven in the US. They earlier reported that they were profitable in the US during the first quarter and this article mentions a $100 million loss during the second quarter.
> 
> The vast majority of these losses are due to Uber doling out a billion dollars to drivers in China to compete with Didi.


The Chinese ate Uber's breakfast, lunch and noodles. The biggest transportation market in the world and Uber won't be their. The Chinese are probably going to run their own autonomous vehicles ASAP and will more than likely say, 'damn the torpedos." The only way the Chinese will be able to censor those tragic errors will be to moderate social media when those unfortunate mishaps occur. Along with quicker adoption of A-vehicles they will also be trying to steal ideas and systems from other countries.


----------



## Karl Marx

Freebyrdie said:


> A post capitalist society? I can't imagine a world where greed, the bottom line being the only line that matters, hunger for power and the constant brainwashing of society to keep buying this or that if you want to be happy replaces those ideals for ideas, information and relationships. The very fabric of the economy is dependent on planned obsolescence so it keeps people buying and money is always the focus. That post capitalist world would require a complete paradigm shift in the minds of man. Not an easy task...maybe they will develope a vaccine for it.


The vaccine is the PING. We are already living in a world based on greed, consumption and waste. What makes post-capitalism so interesting is that we live in a world of abundance yet people go to bed with no work or food and more importantly no self respect. The Opioid and gun epidemic are part of the narrative of a complete break down of capitalism and the social contract. People are so desperate to dull or end the pain that they turn to Uber to delay their own personal demise. When they realize the gig is all for naught they understandably have a deep hatred and better yet a complete understanding of the impact of neoliberalism. Chicago and other urban problems are just the beginnings of systemic societal breakdown.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Karl Marx said:


> A well researched response and yes more than likely some advanced incompetence on the part of Uber. However, in terms of going forward I have no doubt humanity is in for some profound and unwelcomed change when it comes to the nature of work. I would like to further the discussion by citing Paul Romers' paper entitled Endogenous Technological Change 1990 wherein he posits that technology advances were always considered 'exogenous' to microeconomic theory. He changed the economic landscape by saying no to this underlining assumption and that technological change becomes a matter of either need or will. (The PDF is on the JSTOR website, approximately $20.00 and definitely worth your time to read.) The entire theory is being proven correct every hour as computing changes the physical and intellectual landscape. Romers' premise is, 'that instructions for working with raw materials are inherently different from other economic goods.' Google and Uber are creating intellectual products with costs that once been incurred will never be paid for again. Transportation and communications are quickly merging together in a singularity that profoundly changes the entire nature of capitalism. The end goal of Travis and company have everything to do with creating these new robots. Imagine yourself driving in a Google or Uber vehicle with no steering wheel and the computer says, " Karl, in a few moments we'll have some strong crosswinds that might affect you're typing when we go over the next bridge." Having worked in technology where the firm I was working for had to access a new technology, I encountered tremendous amounts of programming and firmware bugs. A few of my colleagues and I were determined to not let it stop us despite the rest of our firm saying it was a lost cause and to give up. We were determined that we would figure out and rewrite the entire code. Much to our delight the inventors and coders believed in our observations and we created a ground breaking digital product. The truly remarkable aspect of software/firmware is that it can completely mimic the real world. The other 'crazy' aspect of the technology was that we were able to turn a flaw into a feature with an enormous benefit to end users. Unfortunately, in creating an autonomous vehicle there will be bugs and my heart goes out to those people that will live through or die because of these unfortunate errors. My confidence in Paul's paper comes from a personal work experience with digital technology and I can only end by saying that society will need to wrestle quickly with the need to discuss how these windfall profits benefit not just a few people but humanity in general. The fallout from the 2008 Great Recession is still with us and if we have learned anything its' that the true problems of the capitalist economy is the lack of demand and not the lack of goods and services. The new info-capitalism economy is moving quickly and will only more grossly distort an obsolete capitalist system. Paul Romer was roundly criticized by his peers and mainstream economists for years but with every new profound change that technology beings it is even more important that we face our technological determinism in ways that benefit the 'greater good'. A winner takes all theology will neither sustain or save the planet. In ending I strongly suggest that Uber has the where with all to at least cover 60 per cent of metered fares be it in NYC, Toronto or London.


Do you have a link to Romer's paper?
Please and thank you.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Karl Marx said:


> The vaccine is the PING. We are already living in a world based on greed, consumption and waste. What makes post-capitalism so interesting is that we live in a world of abundance yet people go to bed with no work or food and more importantly no self respect. The Opioid and gun epidemic are part of the narrative of a complete break down of capitalism and the social contract. People are so desperate to dull or end the pain that they turn to Uber to delay their own personal demise. When they realize the gig is all for naught they understandably have a deep hatred and better yet a complete understanding of the impact of neoliberalism. Chicago and other urban problems are just the beginnings of systemic societal breakdown.


I agree with everything in this post.


----------



## Freebyrdie

Karl Marx said:


> The vaccine is the PING. We are already living in a world based on greed, consumption and waste. What makes post-capitalism so interesting is that we live in a world of abundance yet people go to bed with no work or food and more importantly no self respect. The Opioid and gun epidemic are part of the narrative of a complete break down of capitalism and the social contract. People are so desperate to dull or end the pain that they turn to Uber to delay their own personal demise. When they realize the gig is all for naught they understandably have a deep hatred and better yet a complete understanding of the impact of neoliberalism. Chicago and other urban problems are just the beginnings of systemic societal breakdown.


Indeed. There is more food produced in this country to feed the world many times over. That food is allowed to sit and rot in bins. Distribution of that food to those in need does not serve the purpose of a goal to reduce the world population. Vaccines are a favored method to reduce world population. Disease and infertility built in to the vaccines they claim protect us. Mercury in vaccines calcify the pineal gland in the brain...Turing people into sheeple who can be easily controlled. I don't see the future as especially utopian. Only the richest will survive. Can't be any more capitalist then that.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

A Post Capitalist Society places the elites at the reigns and basically makes the rest of humanity either slaves or welfare *****s.
It's why the Race To Zero exists.
The goal is $1 per hour for us, everything else for them.

Why do you think manufacturing was offset to Asia?
Price.
Now the Asians will become too expensive and the elites will outsource manufacturing to the next slaves. Please probably south America.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Freebyrdie said:


> Indeed. There is more food produced in this country to feed the world many times over. That food is allowed to sit and rot in bins. Distribution of that food to those in need does not serve the purpose of a goal to reduce the world population. Vaccines are a favored method to reduce world population. Disease and infertility built in to the vaccines they claim protect us. Mercury in vaccines calcify the pineal gland in the brain...Turing people into sheeple who can be easily controlled. I don't see the future as especially utopian. Only the richest will survive. Can't be any more capitalist then that.


Reducing the population is necessary.
We have over 7 billion people.
Do you think 11 billion will fare better?
Because that's coming.
11 billion people.
Sooner than you can imagine.


----------



## Karl Marx

TwoFiddyMile said:


> I agree with everything in this post.


I don't have the paper but here is one similar one based on Romer's work that might be a less quantitative but just as useful. 
A PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO THEORIES FOR THE KNOWLEDGE BASED ECONOMY 
http://philo.at/wiki/images/Growth-theory-cortright.pdf


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

RightTurnClyde said:


> I think a lot of confusion on this subject is because new startups operate differently than in the traditional sense.
> 
> For example, take an established company like in manufactured goods (traditional). In this case, if they try to grab marketshare, things don't work out, eventually they lose a lot of money because the cost of their operations doesn't match their revenues. Things are simply never going to get better, and it makes sense to call it quits.
> 
> Uber on the other hand, is losing billions because Uber by its own direction chooses to lose billions at this time. I know it's hard to contemplate (and yes it most certainly can fail), but growth above all else is what ubers engine runs on. In companies like these, their operations costs grow much more slowly than the size of their business, but their revenue directly depend on that size. For instance, a software tech company doesn't need to spend 1000 times more in resources if their user base goes from 1000 to 1 million; contrary to our manufacturer from above that would have to buy materials etc. to cover a lot of demand.
> 
> Therefore, fast growing startups spend a lot of money on GROWTH at a loss if needed because size means more revenue, but not higher cost. In other words, if a startup grows quickly enough, it multiplies its revenue, but if it doesn't, it can lose it all. Hence the money poured into growth. Eventually if successful, the money spent on growth solidifies and turns into a steady source of revenue.
> 
> This is why uber is in the red. It's not because of mismanagement, or poor business sense, its because it's part of their core strategy.
> 
> If uber wanted, they could stop the guarentees, subsidies, free rides, referrals, etc. at a moments notice and cash in. They choose not to at this time.


This. It's also spelled-out by Peter Thiel in "Zero to One" (among many other works on high-performing startups, funds, and rapid-growth/dominant businesses).

Uber isn't losing investors money. Investors are paying for a larger share of the future much-enlarged pie that Uber is fostering. That is what those who invest view the situation as. It is the same path taken by Ebay, Amazon, PayPal, etc. (to name just a few): Amazon is, in fact, still somewhat in startup mode, either eeking-out a profit just barely or taking a loss intentionally year after year; Ebay stalled for other reasons but is still very profitable; PayPal is a global king which makes sending money internationally easier and cheaper than any other available method for ordinary Joe or Jane, and eeks out profit margins of 10-15%+ each year (which is astounding) and its profitability only continues to grow.

The point: people who have invested their energies in learning economics, business and business modeling, finance, investment history, etc., view things ENTIRELY different from 99.9999% of the world population--from you or from I. Just like a doctor doesn't think of anything like the ordinary person who says "cancer", and chemist doesn't have any negative reaction to "chemicals" like soccer mom or health dude.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Karl Marx said:


> I don't have the paper but here is one similar one based on Romer's work that might be a less quantitative but just as useful.
> A PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO THEORIES FOR THE KNOWLEDGE BASED ECONOMY
> http://philo.at/wiki/images/Growth-theory-cortright.pdf


Thanks.
I'm still tracking down "the Limits To Growth" by Club Of Rome.
We have lots of documentation and predictions for the upcoming Armageddon.


----------



## Freebyrdie

TwoFiddyMile said:


> A Post Capitalist Society places the elites at the reigns and basically makes the rest of humanity either slaves or welfare *****s.
> It's why the Race To Zero exists.
> The goal is $1 per hour for us, everything else for them.
> 
> Why do you think manufacturing was offset to Asia?
> Price.
> Now the Asians will become too expensive and the elites will outsource manufacturing to the next slaves. Please probably south America.


With American uber drivers right behind them. Uber has done a good job of making their business model mimick the nature of outsourcing to the cheapest bidder. They will continue to turn over drivers until they find those that are so desperate for work they will essentially pay to perform a free service just to keep a semblance of cash flow to feed their families. How many jobs can you do in America that pay so poorly? Only those who hire illegals to pick their crops and get away with paying sub minimum wages.


----------



## Karl Marx

TwoFiddyMile said:


> A Post Capitalist Society places the elites at the reigns and basically makes the rest of humanity either slaves or welfare *****s.
> It's why the Race To Zero exists.
> The goal is $1 per hour for us, everything else for them.
> 
> Why do you think manufacturing was offset to Asia?


----------



## Freebyrdie

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Reducing the population is necessary.
> We have over 7 billion people.
> Do you think 11 billion will fare better?
> Because that's coming.
> 11 billion people.
> Sooner than you can imagine.


Wheeeeee........we are going to paradise!!!! Art imitates life......the movie sausage party! Lol


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Freebyrdie said:


> With American uber drivers right behind them. Uber has done a good job of making their business model mimick the nature of outsourcing to the cheapest bidder. They will continue to turn over drivers until they find those that are so desperate for work they will essentially pay to perform a free service just to keep a semblance of cash flow to feed their families. How many jobs can you do in America that pay so poorly? Only those who hire illegals to pick their crops and get away with paying sub minimum wages.


I'm telling you, robot cars will just be the beginning.
10 million unemployable globally once driving is automated.


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Reducing the population is necessary.
> We have over 7 billion people.
> Do you think 11 billion will fare better?
> Because that's coming.
> 11 billion people.
> Sooner than you can imagine.


We have over 9 billion people. Food has never been more abundant and, in fact, vastly outstrips the population demands.

The only reason there are problems with hunger are politics.

Medicine is accelerating such that 100,000 tests for conditions which each costs 100s to 1000s of dollars can be performed for a dime (this is already a thing for tens of thousands of diseases and some variants may bring that figure into the millions of tests). Doctors not obstructed by jurisdictions with doctors guilds perform "high risk" surgeries (according to the USA) which take US doctors 8+ hours in an hour or two, more expertly, using updated methods and for a 10th of the price.

Energy technology (the actual key to being able to transform materials from one to another) is, contrary to popular blather, also rapidly advancing (the bottleneck is actually the existing infrastructure, and also batteries--Musk is doing a number on that in some interesting ways).

Industrial-scale transportation of goods is actually nearing a point of revolution which few that I've seen know about.

Medicine, of course, is harder: for politics the US has far too little, with many helpful medicines being forced off-market for having side effects in as little as 1 in 100,000 whereas Europe (wisely) allows them. On the other hand, it's a trade-off: less worry of interactions.

Like how the US also has the stablest and safest of supplies anywhere for other reasons: people around the world face 1/3 to 1/2 (or even more) of the medicine supply being counterfeit (often deadly). So US drugs are more expensive, but almost universally safe. Elsewhere they are cheaper, but there is a risk your pill for a rather minor condition may actually kill you for being cut with something.

Now average productivity IS stagnant or even negative in many places: this is largely due to failed education systems though. The average office worker is using 20+ year-old tools which were designed for printers and never designed to increase productivity for the average worker. 40-year-old tools which actually were are...left unused by the vast majority. My coworkers at the last gig might take a week+ to edit 1000+ lines for formatting correctness before they could be input into a system without causing royal pain...it takes me perhaps 25 minutes. It took me 4 hours to learn the skills needed to do that. I saved myself 1000 hours or more and kept the position and got advancement over competition. Most people don't know they even have such options.

But my point: the 18th Century is calling--it wants its Malthus (pre-industrial, pre-science philosophe-izing) back.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

thelittleguyhelper said:


> We have over 9 billion people. Food has never been more abundant and, in fact, vastly outstrips the population demands.
> 
> The only reason there are problems with hunger are politics.
> 
> Medicine is accelerating such that 100,000 tests for conditions which each costs 100s to 1000s of dollars can be performed for a dime (this is already a thing for tens of thousands of diseases and some variants may bring that figure into the millions of tests). Doctors not obstructed by jurisdictions with doctors guilds perform "high risk" surgeries (according to the USA) which take US doctors 8+ hours in an hour or two, more expertly, using updated methods and for a 10th of the price.
> 
> Energy technology (the actual key to being able to transform materials from one to another) is, contrary to popular blather, also rapidly advancing (the bottleneck is actually the existing infrastructure, and also batteries--Musk is doing a number on that in some interesting ways).
> 
> Industrial-scale transportation of goods is actually nearing a point of revolution which few that I've seen know about.
> 
> Medicine, of course, is harder: for politics the US has far too little, with many helpful medicines being forced off-market for having side effects in as little as 1 in 100,000 whereas Europe (wisely) allows them. On the other hand, it's a trade-off: less worry of interactions.
> 
> Like how the US also has the stablest and safest of supplies anywhere for other reasons: people around the world face 1/3 to 1/2 (or even more) of the medicine supply being counterfeit (often deadly). So US drugs are more expensive, but almost universally safe. Elsewhere they are cheaper, but there is a risk your pill for a rather minor condition may actually kill you for being cut with something.
> 
> Now average productivity IS stagnant or even negative in many places: this is largely due to failed education systems though. The average office worker is using 20+ year-old tools which were designed for printers and never designed to increase productivity for the average worker. 40-year-old tools which actually were are...left unused by the vast majority. My coworkers at the last gig might take a week+ to edit 1000+ lines for formatting correctness before they could be input into a system without causing royal pain...it takes me perhaps 25 minutes. It took me 4 hours to learn the skills needed to do that. I saved myself 1000 hours or more and kept the position and got advancement over competition. Most people don't know they even have such options.
> 
> But my point: the 18th Century is calling--it wants its Malthus (pre-industrial, pre-science philosophe-izing) back.


I stopped reading when you made an almost 1.5 billion human error 
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

The little guy helper...
More education than brains, and doesn't double check her data.

Must hurt to be one upped by a dirty cabbie


----------



## Karl Marx

thelittleguyhelper said:


> We have over 9 billion people. Food has never been more abundant and, in fact, vastly outstrips the population demands.
> 
> The only reason there are problems with hunger are politics.
> 
> Medicine is accelerating such that 100,000 tests for conditions which each costs 100s to 1000s of dollars can be performed for a dime (this is already a thing for tens of thousands of diseases and some variants may bring that figure into the millions of tests). Doctors not obstructed by jurisdictions with doctors guilds perform "high risk" surgeries (according to the USA) which take US doctors 8+ hours in an hour or two, more expertly, using updated methods and for a 10th of the price.
> 
> Energy technology (the actual key to being able to transform materials from one to another) is, contrary to popular blather, also rapidly advancing (the bottleneck is actually the existing infrastructure, and also batteries--Musk is doing a number on that in some interesting ways).
> 
> Industrial-scale transportation of goods is actually nearing a point of revolution which few that I've seen know about.
> 
> Medicine, of course, is harder: for politics the US has far too little, with many helpful medicines being forced off-market for having side effects in as little as 1 in 100,000 whereas Europe (wisely) allows them. On the other hand, it's a trade-off: less worry of interactions.
> 
> Like how the US also has the stablest and safest of supplies anywhere for other reasons: people around the world face 1/3 to 1/2 (or even more) of the medicine supply being counterfeit (often deadly). So US drugs are more expensive, but almost universally safe. Elsewhere they are cheaper, but there is a risk your pill for a rather minor condition may actually kill you for being cut with something.
> 
> Now average productivity IS stagnant or even negative in many places: this is largely due to failed education systems though. The average office worker is using 20+ year-old tools which were designed for printers and never designed to increase productivity for the average worker. 40-year-old tools which actually were are...left unused by the vast majority. My coworkers at the last gig might take a week+ to edit 1000+ lines for formatting correctness before they could be input into a system without causing royal pain...it takes me perhaps 25 minutes. It took me 4 hours to learn the skills needed to do that. I saved myself 1000 hours or more and kept the position and got advancement over competition. Most people don't know they even have such options.
> 
> But my point: the 18th Century is calling--it wants its Malthus (pre-industrial, pre-science philosophe-izing) back.


Thanks, that was a thought provoking post. In every technological advance their are many asides to all the good and bad things wrought of technology. In this new more advancing automation world there is one big question. Do the fruits of all this technology accrue to one person or a small set of people. Does the collective good have any merit in this discussion. One simple fact is clear, when this autonomous technology arrives we won't be facing another class of Billionaires but rather Trillionaires. This is not a far fetched possibility, Bill Gates is worth 79.2 billion and last year his worth grew by 3 billion. The first person to reach this status could very well be Travis. Should someone have the right to amass this much wealth and what are the implications for Cities and Nation States that fail to abide by the rules Uber sets out in its partner agreements. My suggestion is that Uber and its' like will need to be reigned in for the public good. These new information capitalists will need to be taxed in some new and unorthodox ways. We need to be think in terms of a "New Deal" mindset to counteract the ill affects the digital elites.


----------



## Freebyrdie

thelittleguyhelper said:


> Medicine, of course, is harder: for politics the US has far too little, with many helpful medicines being forced off-market for having side effects in as little as 1 in 100,000 whereas Europe (wisely) allows them. On the other hand, it's a trade-off: less worry of interactions.
> 
> Like how the US also has the stablest and safest of supplies anywhere for other reasons: people around the world face 1/3 to 1/2 (or even more) of the medicine supply being counterfeit (often deadly). So US drugs are more expensive, but almost universally safe. Elsewhere they are cheaper, but there is a risk your pill for a rather minor condition may actually kill you for being cut with something.


Western medicine is designed to create lifelong customers and nowhere is this more apparent then big pharma. You go to the doctor and are diagnosed with condition a, dr scripts drug a to manage the condition. Drug a has BUILT IN side effects. You return to dr with complaints of side effects from drug a. Dr tells you to keep taking drug a for original condition then script you drug b to manage the side effects from drug a. Drug b also cause this or that unconfortable side effect. Return to dr....scripts drug c to treat side effects from drug b..and so on and so on, you get the drift. I worked as an administrator for senior assisted living. It was NOTHING to have elderly residents on as many as 27 different drugs!! have you NOT SEEN all the ads from lawyers soliciting for class action suits against pharma companies? It's not because the drugs doctors prescribe us are safe! Now, if western medicine placed its primary focus on FUNCTIONAL medicine, where the root cause of a condition is sought and treatment is designed to reverse that cause through proper nutrition and safe holistic means the need for pharma drugs and doctors would be greatly reduced. So so many curable conditions are now "managed" through the lifelong use of pharma drugs. That approach would not serve the good of the greedy elite.


----------



## Freebyrdie

TwoFiddyMile said:


> The little guy helper...
> More education than brains, and doesn't double check her data.
> 
> Must hurt to be one upped by a dirty cabbie


Her take on pharma could not be more uninformed.


----------



## rembrandt

Freebyrdie said:


> How on earth can the expense of owning, maintaining and paying for gas in driverless cars EVER be cheaper then using us drivers who pay for all of that and work at slave wages. It doesn't make sense to me. If they really want to increase their profits..raise the rates where they get a bigger percentage instead of offering us bonus money and boosts which pays us more but costs them. Riders will still use uber at a higher rate. As long as it remains less then a taxi fare, riders will ride.


Let's be objective. There are certain limits to current robotic technology regardless how advanced they are. That is specially true when it is about human- machine interaction. Most general public including news reporters do not have basic knowledge on science and technology.

Uber's short time strategy is not to make profit but but to prop up the IPO value by using perception management. Anything that Uber says about anything , will have this IPO value in mind and of course , they need new investors to keep writing CEO's paychecks.

There is no production vehicle at this moment that can autonomously perform daily commutes with zero human interaction. Yes , there are experimental vehicles out there but those are not production ready.

Will the government go all the way to clean the US roads of regular vehicles in order to make room for corporate houses like Uber, Google , Tesla etc so that they can cheer new technology and make profit at the expense of the larger population? This is a test case to see if corporate giants are more powerful than the government although there are hypotheses to support this notion of corporate domination over democracy.


----------



## WestSubDriver

Karl Marx said:


> The Chinese ate Uber's breakfast, lunch and noodles. The biggest transportation market in the world and Uber won't be their. The Chinese are probably going to run their own autonomous vehicles ASAP and will more than likely say, 'damn the torpedos." The only way the Chinese will be able to censor those tragic errors will be to moderate social media when those unfortunate mishaps occur. Along with quicker adoption of A-vehicles they will also be trying to steal ideas and systems from other countries.


Well, Uber did rightly throw in the towel in China but it is getting $1 billion of the $2 billion it invested back along with 20% ownership of the combined Didi-Uber China.


----------



## Euius

Bolympia said:


> No. The figures given are approximate and time charged is negligible. 55 cents per minute of sitting still


That's $33/hour



> the time is cumulative and the wheels of the car have to be completely stationary for the time charge to kick in.


For ten seconds. It "kicks in" at every light


----------



## hydrox

We need to have a world wide "offline" day. If for just one single day, every driver refused to go online, imagine how much profit loss they'd have. People need to realize your an independent contractor, right? You work for yourself. 

Uber is somewhat like Al Capone. Sits in his chair, smokes cigars, finds loopholes and let the drivers do all their dirty work. They just watch the cash flow in.


----------



## Karl Marx

hydrox said:


> We need to have a world wide "offline" day. If for just one single day, every driver refused to go online, imagine how much profit loss they'd have. People need to realize your an independent contractor, right? You work for yourself.
> 
> Uber is somewhat like Al Capone. Sits in his chair, smokes cigars, finds loopholes and let the drivers do all their dirty work. They just watch the cash flow in.


Sir, a noble thought. Social media tools and with the help of some charismatic figure it could certainly be an event to raise awareness of the the plight of drivers.


----------



## Freebyrdie

hydrox said:


> We need to have a world wide "offline" day. If for just one single day, every driver refused to go online, imagine how much profit loss they'd have. People need to realize your an independent contractor, right? You work for yourself.
> 
> Uber is somewhat like Al Capone. Sits in his chair, smokes cigars, finds loopholes and let the drivers do all their dirty work. They just watch the cash flow in.


Wonderful idea in theory, and it would certainly turn the power table, however, it will never happen. There are way too many drivers that would jump at the chance to scab when the surge rates climb. They made an honorable attempt last year in San Francisco on super bowl day. It was a miserable failure.


----------



## hydrox

I agree. It needs serious motivation from all drivers not to bounce on the surge it created.


----------



## Karl Marx

Freebyrdie said:


> Wonderful idea in theory, and it would certainly turn the power table, however, it will never happen. There are way too many drivers that would jump at the chance to scab when the surge rates climb. They made an honorable attempt last year in San Francisco on super bowl day. It was a miserable failure.


 If I had my friend, who is a graphic artist, create a poster, what day would you pick and why?


Karl Marx said:


> Sir, a noble thought. Social media tools and with the help of some charismatic figure it could certainly be an event to raise awareness of the the plight of drivers.


----------



## Freebyrdie

Karl Marx said:


> If I had my friend, who is a graphic artist, create a poster, what day would you pick and why?


That's a good question. My first thought would be to pick a really busy day...like New Year's Eve. That would hurt a good pay day for drivers though. I would have to say, if it could be pulled off any 24 hour period on any given Friday or Saturday would surely be effective if you could get enough driver support to where riders HAD to resort to taking a cab. Just think of the message it would send the riders too! Oh...I have a dream. So did MLK and how has that turned out?


----------



## GooberX

Freebyrdie said:


> That's a good question. My first thought would be to pick a really busy day...like New Year's Eve. That would hurt a good pay day for drivers though. I would have to say, if it could be pulled off any 24 hour period on any given Friday or Saturday would surely be effective if you could get enough driver support to where riders HAD to resort to taking a cab. Just think of the message it would send the riders too! Oh...I have a dream. So did MLK and how has that turned out?


Good luck with that.

Every effort has failed.


----------



## hydrox

Karl Marx said:


> If I had my friend, who is a graphic artist, create a poster, what day would you pick and why?


December 12th... Here's why. The first big investment.

On December 12, 2014, _TechCrunch_ reported that the Chinese search engine Baidu, the mainland's largest, is expected to make a significant investment in Uber.[22] The deal, the details of which were not shared with the media, was confirmed on December 17, 2014, following a Beijing meeting involving Kalanick and Baidu chief executive and chairman Robin Lee, who made a commitment to connect the search engine's map and mobile-search features with Uber's app. At the time of the arrangement, Uber existed in eight Chinese mainland cities. Kalanick told the media afterward of an absence of "pressing regulatory issues" for Uber in China.[23][24] In May 2015, Uber revealed plans to raise between $1.5 billion and $2 billion in new funding, raising the value of the company to $50 billion or higher.


----------



## hydrox

GooberX said:


> Good luck with that.
> 
> Every effort has failed.


All it takes is one tiny spark to start a wildfire... At least that's what smokey the bear said. Well.. Only you can prevent them. But you get my point.


----------



## GooberX

hydrox said:


> All it takes is one tiny spark to start a wildfire... At least that's what smokey the bear said. Well.. Only you can prevent them. But you get my point.


There have been torches used....way more potent than sparks.


----------



## Karl Marx

hydrox said:


> All it takes is one tiny spark to start a wildfire... At least that's what smokey the bear said. Well.. Only you can prevent them. But you get my point.


Thank you...a great ( Bear ) metaphor.


----------



## uberlyfer

GooberX said:


> Good luck with that.
> 
> Every effort has failed.


Still, we should do it, but have one guy in the 2001 Geo Metro livestream himself out there. I want to see a surge that makes that guy $24,000/mi, & $1,750/min.


----------



## uberlyfer

I want to see an Onion version of this story like, "Uber thought they were doing really well, but then when they accounted for their opportunity cost, capital asset depreciation, unexpected external costs (people throwing up in their offices), and taxes they realized they were actually losing $2.4 Billion/Year!"


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Xylphan said:


> That's not accurate. Rental companies have been marketing and serving customers for year. They have an online presence, apps, deals with third party travel providers, so on and so forth that has been built up over decades. All this and they own and maintain their own fleet of vehicles. They already have pieces in place to handle autonomous vehicles once they become economically viable.
> 
> Uber is a contracting service. They don't bring anything to the table for rental companies. Their business model is competitive to rental companies, not complimentary.


fine. Tell that to the rental car companies.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

rembrandt said:


> We are not talking about general consumers but Uber who wants to make greater profit margins by replacing the drivers.


McDonald's didn't eliminate the Big Mac when it introduced Chicken McNuggets.
The TNCs will not just flip a switch one day and go from drivers to no drivers.


----------



## rembrandt

Michael - Cleveland said:


> McDonald's didn't eliminate the Big Mac when it introduced Chicken McNuggets.
> The TNCs will not just flip a switch one day and go from drivers to no drivers.


You are correct and that is the whole point. However, Mac analogy that you mentioned , does not apply because Big Mac and McNuggets are two different products serving different customer segments.


----------



## ChiChilly

Uber will continue to lose money based on the current system in place. Google is taking over haha.


----------



## run26912

ChiChilly said:


> Uber will continue to lose money based on the current system in place. Google is taking over haha.


Wow. Looks likes Uber actually lost $2 billion in 2015 and is on track to lose close to $2.8 billion in 2016. These guys sure are GOOD AT FLUSHING MONEY DOWN THE TOILET. http://money.usnews.com/investing/articles/2016-08-29/uber-ipo-losing-luster-after-a-12-billion-loss

Google offering their own rideshare/carpooling service in San Francisco .. o boy
http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-takes-on-uber-with-new-ride-share-service-1472584235

BONG!!!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

rembrandt said:


> You are correct and that is the whole point. However, Mac analogy that you mentioned , does not apply because Big Mac and McNuggets are two different products serving different customer segments.


Yeah - two different products -
precisely the way UberX and UberSELECT (and, wait for it...) UberAutonomous are different products.

There is a reason that McD's and every other mass-market fast-food chain have a "value menu".


----------



## MaineMasai

Michael - Cleveland said:


> "Uber is losing money faster than any technology company ever, and it's largely because of an essential component to the company's operations: the drivers."


Uber is trying to go to driverless cars. They invested a lot in the technology. That's why they are spreading this propaganda. Drivers are the reason the company exists. Now they want investors to view us as liabilities which no one with common sense will buy. No drivers, no Uber. It's that simple.


----------



## rembrandt

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yeah - two different products -
> precisely the way UberX and UberSELECT (and, wait for it...) UberAutonomous are different products.
> 
> There is a reason that McD's and every other mass-market fast-food chain have a "value menu".


I agree but I wonder If Uber would agree as they want to present the very idea of profitability by replacing the drivers. If uber autonomous is an additional product that is going to cost more money and a cannibalizing effect on other Uber lines. How is that going to make Uber profitable ?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

MaineMasai said:


> Drivers are the reason the company exists.


Yeah... and cows exist because people like ice cream.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

rembrandt said:


> If uber autonomous is an additional product that is going to cost more money and a cannibalizing effect on other Uber lines. How is that going to make Uber profitable ?


Who says it will cost them more? They certainly don't.


----------



## m1a1mg

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Who says it will cost them more? They certainly don't.


I don't know how you can imagine that autonomous cars won't be fully funded by Uber. From what I've seen, you can't just take the equipment off and on as you want.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

m1a1mg said:


> I don't know how you can imagine that autonomous cars won't be fully funded by Uber. From what I've seen, you can't just take the equipment off and on as you want.


There are a lot of articles that have been published on this subject. Do a quick google search. Most of what I've read suggests Uber will not own these vehicles - but, rather, just like now, sign-up individuals cars - and the cars of fleet management companies.


----------



## Nightrider9999

RightTurnClyde said:


> LOL??? Consider...
> 
> You know who was losing massive amounts of money before they were bought; YouTube! Similarly, Amazon took years and years and to come out of the red! Why is that...????
> 
> Uber and many other startups have adopted a strategy to keep prices artificially low to get themselves deep into valued markets "gaining market share" (i.e. by losing money). That builds a large customer base that not only uses their services but eventually relies upon on it (very important).
> 
> Secondly, uber has a seemingly steady flow of venture capitol at this time from deep pocketed individuals and even nation states which still amazes me (i.e. financing from the outside thus not needing to rely on internal profit). If they succeed, they then can change tactics after running everyone else out of business and snowball this into real actual hard cash and profit (the plan)!
> 
> As I mentioned in my previous post, there's a bigger picture to look at and ubers huge losses are calculated losses towards a bigger gain. I'm in no way suggesting that this tactic will work (I hope it doesn't), and Travis may well be the the greatest con man of all time (time will tell). In spite of this, relying on earnings reports now, to infer that ubers boat is starting to sink or is a losing venture is shortsighted and not worth writing about except for generating headlines.


I think you got it. Get people to depend on the service the same way we can not leave the house without our cell phone , possibility having people sell there cars in the larger cities because they are convinced that using uber is cheaper than owning a car. Then when they have them were they want them they can slowly start raising prices a little at a time so the masses don't know they are being cooked untill it's to late.


----------



## Uberweekenddude

ExpendableAsset said:


> Excellent observations, especially on the 24 hour robotic workday. Of course, more work is more miles and damage. Your last sentence is my favorite however. Scientific minds throughout the ages have been constantly reminded that the real world is often very different from the laboratory. The big X factor that intrigues me is how passengers will act unsupervised. My theory, based on real world observation of human behavior in myriad context, is that they will soil and damage the car at an exponentially higher rate than if someone was in the car supervising.


what about the accidents, people are going to be looking at these driverless cars and will be distracted and smash into them guaranteed.

law suits galore !!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Abraxas79

LA Cabbie said:


> http://gizmodo.com/why-uber-is-losing-money-faster-than-any-tech-company-e-1785736918
> 
> "Eventually, Uber will get rid of the drivers and turn a huge profit."
> 
> "What is surprising, however, is that the biggest cost to the company is the fee it pays out to drivers."
> 
> The success and longevity of this company rests on firing the drivers.


The clown running UBER has visions of grandeur. He thinks the he will gain a monopoly on all public transportation. He would rather go bankrupt then raise fares. No company can keep having results like UBER and survive for long. An investor would be insane to invest in UBER at this point. The ones that have surely must be looking for a way to get out.

The problem with Travis is that he is an ideologue, which has no place in business. He has managed to alienate almost everyone that he comes in contact with. Take the tipping option as example. Any sensible businessperson running UBER would have added it long ago. Throw a bone for the driver. It would not have cost UBER any market share at all and would have pleased the drivers. Travis does not believe in tipping though, so he would rather spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees on this issue rather then simply adding it to the platform. He is resented by the drivers as a result. I have yet to meet a driver for UBER that has a good opinion of the company. They drive for UBER because they feel the have to, but as soon as a better opportunity comes along, they are gone. The idea of putting one extra dime into this slime buckets pocket is utterly repugnant, but Travis does not care about the drivers whatsoever. His model is where they have constantly recruit new drivers. They leave just as fast as they come.

The quality of the driver is utterly irrelevant too. In the city that I drive in, with the exception of hourly guarantees, I have never seen a single financial incentive, or bonus. that was not related to referral. Free gas, free this, free that, $500.00 here. Referral, Referral, Referral.
If I owned UBER, the quality of driver would matter to me. I would try and reward the driver that consistently had the high rating, not try and replace him or her with rickshaw drivers or force him to drive for LYFT.


----------



## Rat

Michael - Cleveland said:


> I'm afraid that's not correct. Read your driver agreement: Uber does not pay you. The client pays you and then you pay Uber. Uber just acts as the third party conduit for the payments that are made from the rider to the driver. Both rider and driver are customers of Uber.


You put too much credence in words over reality


----------



## Xylphan

Rat said:


> You put too much credence in words over reality


It's a fact. By law, you are an independent contractor, not an employee. Uber provides the service of matching riders to contractors. In return, Uber receives a cut of the fare. The rider pays you, not Uber.

That's why Uber doesn't have to (and doesn't care really) if you make minimum wage. They don't have to provide benefits, health coverage, vacation pay, or handle your taxes. You don't receive a W-2. You really are a business entity, which is why you have to be careful with how you handle things. It's completely different from how a normal wage job works.


----------



## Rat

Xylphan said:


> It's a fact. By law, you are an independent contractor, not an employee. Uber provides the service of matching riders to contractors. In return, Uber receives a cut of the fare. The rider pays you, not Uber.
> 
> That's why Uber doesn't have to (and doesn't care really) if you make minimum wage. They don't have to provide benefits, health coverage, vacation pay, or handle your taxes. You don't receive a W-2. You really are a business entity, which is why you have to be careful with how you handle things. It's completely different from how a normal wage job works.


In your eagerness to suck Uber's dick, you completely failed to address my statement that Uber is paying us more than they take it. Which also proves you don't have a clue as to what is going on. PS We receive no payment from the pax. Sometimes the pax is refunded, but we still get paid.


----------



## Beachbum in a cornfield

LA Cabbie said:


> http://gizmodo.com/why-uber-is-losing-money-faster-than-any-tech-company-e-1785736918
> 
> "Eventually, Uber will get rid of the drivers and turn a huge profit."
> 
> "What is surprising, however, is that the biggest cost to the company is the fee it pays out to drivers."
> 
> The success and longevity of this company rests on firing the drivers.


Spot on my good man!!!!....They would increase revenue by about 40%....Combine that with a 20% lowering of all rates....then ya got something....BTW....I am thinking about buying AOL stock....but my Etch-a- Sketch needs rebooting


----------



## Beachbum in a cornfield

hounddogman said:


> I think the confusion here lies in the fact that a lot of people cannot comprehend the fact that a company can have value, and at the same time be either loss-making or burning through cash at an alarming rate.


That's what I told my damn bankers!!! Before they had me arrested....


----------



## Beachbum in a cornfield

Bolympia said:


> It's Hyperbole man.


Wow...where??? Hyperbole Man was here??? Damn it I missed him again!!!!....well...maybe next time.....gonna kick back and hit the hyperbowl....Bowlimpia?....I'm not ready for that kind of competition...yet


----------



## Xylphan

Rat said:


> In your eagerness to suck Uber's &%[email protected]!*, you completely failed to address my statement that Uber is paying us more than they take it. Which also proves you don't have a clue as to what is going on.


What in anything I have written on this forum makes you think I'm an Uber fanboi you ignorant ****?

Uber does not pay you. They never have. They never will. Uber is a contracting agency. The rider pays you. You have a contract with Uber that stipulates you will give them a percentage of every fare you make in return for the services that Uber provides. You PAY Uber, not the other way around.

When they increase their percentage, but drop rates, their income stream remains the same, the fares get lower, and the drivers get screwed. Since your contract with Uber gives them explicit right to set the fares and percentages, they can do whatever they like. But it's still the rider that pays you. Uber can just manipulate how much of that fare you actually get to see.

That's one of the reasons why Uber is a bunch of bastards. If they were dealing with professional contractors they tell Uber to @#$! themselves with a spiked cattle prod sideways. No serious contractor would ever agree to the terms that Uber puts in it's contracts.


----------



## autofill

Uber is losing money because they are on a shopping spree. Uber spend billions on themselves right now. Go checkout their office and their wild stripper parties. It's like one of those guys that just won the lottery and don't know how to save it until it's all gone.


----------



## run26912

Beachbum in a cornfield said:


> Spot on my good man!!!!....They would increase revenue by about 40%....Combine that with a 20% lowering of all rates....then ya got something....BTW....I am thinking about buying AOL stock....but my Etch-a- Sketch needs rebooting


Bwahahaha.. etch a sketch.. LoL.

BONG!!!


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Rat said:


> You put too much credence in words over reality


yeah - plead that in a court of law. works every time.


----------



## run26912

autofill said:


> Uber is losing money because they are on a shopping spree. Uber spend billions on themselves right now. Go checkout their office and their wild stripper parties. It's like one of those guys that just won the lottery and don't know how to save it until it's all gone.


Really? $2 billion on strippers and office furniture?

Very insightful... I'm sure Enron could have used your forensic accounting skills.

BONG!!!


----------



## Beachbum in a cornfield

Karl Marx said:


> Marshall McLuhan, said "All hardware becomes software." Travis is no fool and no doubt has read much of McLuhan's work. The autonomous technology race is on and as important as was the race to put satellites into orbit. The most important part of transportation won't be the vehicles themselves but rather the brains of autonomous navigation systems. The legacy of the data that Uber has already collected gives them a head start in geospatial mapping of all the cities where they operate. Should Uber be first to market, it could conceivably dictate the design of the vehicles they will accept as partners. These vehicles might not even be traditional 4 door sedans. They could be of a completely different design and could rival and or disinter-mediate out public transit. Along with their technology they could also strong arm their way on to city streets even before these systems are full proof.


Loved your early stuff Karl....You were only hal


run26912 said:


> One last point. There was an article someone posted about how Uber's biggest reason for losses is the drivers. Bwahahaha. Without drivers, there is no Uber. But if drivers are the reason they are losing so much money, then the model is flawed... look up PARASITIC CASTRATION. That is the model that Uber is running right now... right into the toilet. Name another company where it's workforce has a 40% turnaround and is constantly suing the company... and frankly feels screwed on a daily basis. How is that a sustainable model financially and morally? It isn't. The notion of a personalized mass transit system of autonomous cars is light years away from execution nevermind profitability. Show me a metro or transit system that is profitable? Take that and extrapolate it a million times and tell me if its still profitable. Uber's vision is a personalized autonomous mass transit system that wants to bypass regulation, costs Uber no expenses for fuel or maintenance and will boost its stock price to the moon... keep dreaming.
> 
> Someone explain to me the logic behind Uber leaving Austin, TX, because they didn't want to fingerprint their drivers... and in doing so, they left 10,000 drivers high and dry with NO WARNING. That's not business sense, that's arrogance. That arrogance is a cancer embedded in the heart of the company and the heart can't be removed (not legally)... that is Travis.
> 
> BONG!!!


best two bongs hits in a long time!!!!


----------



## Beachbum in a cornfield

jack badly said:


> Uber is losing money now, but not in the next 7-10 years(possibly longer if something screws up) when fully self driving car rolling out on the streets. That explains why uber is in such a hurry to replace human drivers.
> 
> robot cars can work 24/7. they won't reject pool rides like human does. it is a win win situation for them
> 
> work while you still can. The future will be very bleak. fewer jobs.
> 
> Thank You Nostradamus !!!! 7-10 years huh???....And building,owning and maintenance costs? Fuel costs? (ohh sorry no doubt electric by then right?....and charging time and costs?).....and now...wait for it.....here comes the big one.....LIABILITY COSTS?


----------



## Beachbum in a cornfield

RightTurnClyde said:


> I think a lot of confusion on this subject is because new startups operate differently than in the traditional sense.
> 
> For example, take an established company like in manufactured goods (traditional). In this case, if they try to grab marketshare, things don't work out, eventually they lose a lot of money because the cost of their operations doesn't match their revenues. Things are simply never going to get better, and it makes sense to call it quits.
> 
> Uber on the other hand, is losing billions because Uber by its own direction chooses to lose billions at this time. I know it's hard to contemplate (and yes it most certainly can fail), but growth above all else is what ubers engine runs on. In companies like these, their operations costs grow much more slowly than the size of their business, but their revenue directly depend on that size. For instance, a software tech company doesn't need to spend 1000 times more in resources if their user base goes from 1000 to 1 million; contrary to our manufacturer from above that would have to buy materials etc. to cover a lot of demand.
> 
> Therefore, fast growing startups spend a lot of money on GROWTH at a loss if needed because size means more revenue, but not higher cost. In other words, if a startup grows quickly enough, it multiplies its revenue, but if it doesn't, it can lose it all. Hence the money poured into growth. Eventually if successful, the money spent on growth solidifies and turns into a steady source of revenue.
> 
> This is why uber is in the red. It's not because of mismanagement, or poor business sense, its because it's part of their core strategy.
> 
> If uber wanted, they could stop the guarentees, subsidies, free rides, referrals, etc. at a moments notice and cash in. They choose not to at this time.


Cash in??? Cash in what?? Debt?....If they stop "subsidies" they lose drivers and then very quickly they lose riders....then market share... and go belly up!!


----------



## Beachbum in a cornfield

jack badly said:


> watch @ 1:30
> 
> self driving is still at infancy stage. wtf was that.


ummmm....a film? ya know...like a movie?....Psst...time travel is not yet possible either....and...long as I am at it....no Matrix either...sorry


----------



## run26912

Beachbum in a cornfield said:


> Cash in??? Cash in what?? Debt?....If they stop "subsidies" they lose drivers and then very quickly they lose riders....then market share... and go belly up!!


Uber pioneering the Catch-22 (subsidies) and Parasitic Castration (drivers) business model... what could possibly go wrong?

BONG!!!


----------



## Beachbum in a cornfield

It tolls for thee Travis......damn those bong hits is gettin me


----------



## RightTurnClyde

Beachbum in a cornfield said:


> Cash in??? Cash in what?? Debt?....If they stop "subsidies" they lose drivers and then very quickly they lose riders....then market share... and go belly up!!


Yes, a real possibility, too bad they don't seem to worrying much about it though.


----------



## rembrandt

No company on earth can infinitely subsidize it's products at the cost of it's investors. No investor will infinitely invest in a loss making machine just to write the fat paychecks of a 'CEO for life'. 

Riders are getting used to subsidized price due to heavy price war. When government stops subsidies, people often revolts. When a company stops subsidies, customer will look for another Santa Clause which will surface almost immediately. The looser in the end will be the investors, not the CEO for Life who is already a multi billionaire by now with no liability.


----------



## Rat

Xylphan said:


> What in anything I have written on this forum makes you think I'm an Uber fanboi you ignorant ****?
> 
> Uber does not pay you. They never have. They never will. Uber is a contracting agency. The rider pays you. You have a contract with Uber that stipulates you will give them a percentage of every fare you make in return for the services that Uber provides. You PAY Uber, not the other way around.
> 
> When they increase their percentage, but drop rates, their income stream remains the same, the fares get lower, and the drivers get screwed. Since your contract with Uber gives them explicit right to set the fares and percentages, they can do whatever they like. But it's still the rider that pays you. Uber can just manipulate how much of that fare you actually get to see.
> 
> That's one of the reasons why Uber is a bunch of bastards. If they were dealing with professional contractors they tell Uber to @#$! themselves with a spiked cattle prod sideways. No serious contractor would ever agree to the terms that Uber puts in it's contracts.


You parrot Uber's "independent contractor" lie. This makes you an active supporter. Uber is paying in excess of what they collect from the riders in incentives. Therefore, any court will find that we are indeed employees. Note that we receive no funds whatever from the pax.


----------



## Rat

rembrandt said:


> No company on earth can infinitely subsidize it's products at the cost of it's investors. No investor will infinitely invest in a loss making machine just to write the fat paychecks of a 'CEO for life'.
> 
> Riders are getting used to subsidized price due to heavy price war. When government stops subsidies, people often revolts. When a company stops subsidies, customer will look for another Santa Clause which will surface almost immediately. The looser in the end will be the investors, not the CEO for Life who is already a multi billionaire by now with no liability.


He was recently found personally liable for $25 million


----------



## Rat

Michael - Cleveland said:


> yeah - plead that in a court of law. works every time.


Placing a label on something doesn't mean it fits. Courts recognize this all the time


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Rat said:


> He was recently found personally liable for $25 million


?? If you're talking about the Meyer Price Fixing Case, no such judgement has been made:
http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2oz93qogm/new-york-southern-district-court/meyer-v-kalanick/

If you're talking about another case, please cite it.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Rat said:


> Placing a label on something doesn't mean it fits. Courts recognize this all the time


In contract law, words mean exactly what they are meant to mean - and any ambiguity is found in favor of the party that did not write the contract. There is zero ambiguity in that portion of the Uber Driver Agreement.

4.1 Fare Calculation and Your Payment. *You are entitled to charge a fare for each instance of completed Transportation Services provided to a User that are obtained via the Uber Services* ("Fare"), where such Fare is calculated based upon a base fare amount plus distance (as determined by Company using location-based services enabled through the Device) and/or time amounts, as detailed at www.uber.com/cities for the applicable Territory ("Fare Calculation"). You acknowledge and agree that the Fare provided under the Fare Calculation is the only payment you will receive in connection with the provision of Transportation Services, and that neither the Fare nor the Fare Calculation includes any gratuity. You are also entitled to charge User for any Tolls, taxes or fees incurred during the provision of Transportation Services, if applicable. *You: (i) appoint Company as your limited payment collection agent solely for the purpose of accepting the Fare, applicable Tolls and, depending on the region and/or if requested by you, applicable taxes and fees from the User on your behalf via the payment processing functionality facilitated by the Uber Services; and (ii) agree that payment made by User to Company (or to an Affiliate of Company acting as an agent of Company) shall be considered the same as payment made directly by User to you*.


----------



## Xylphan

Rat said:


> You parrot Uber's "independent contractor" lie. This makes you an active supporter. Uber is paying in excess of what they collect from the riders in incentives. Therefore, any court will find that we are indeed employees. Note that we receive no funds whatever from the pax.


You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. As pointed out by Michael-Cleveland, the contract you agreed to EXPLICITLY STATES that you are an independent contractor. You AUTHORIZE Uber to act as a payment collector. For services rendered by Uber, you PAY them a cut of the fare.

Absolutely none of that is legally ambiguous.


----------



## Rat

Michael - Cleveland said:


> In contract law, words mean exactly what they are meant to mean - and any ambiguity is found in favor of the party that did not write the contract. There is zero ambiguity in that portion of the Uber Driver Agreement.
> 
> 4.1 Fare Calculation and Your Payment. *You are entitled to charge a fare for each instance of completed Transportation Services provided to a User that are obtained via the Uber Services* ("Fare"), where such Fare is calculated based upon a base fare amount plus distance (as determined by Company using location-based services enabled through the Device) and/or time amounts, as detailed at www.uber.com/cities for the applicable Territory ("Fare Calculation"). You acknowledge and agree that the Fare provided under the Fare Calculation is the only payment you will receive in connection with the provision of Transportation Services, and that neither the Fare nor the Fare Calculation includes any gratuity. You are also entitled to charge User for any Tolls, taxes or fees incurred during the provision of Transportation Services, if applicable. *You: (i) appoint Company as your limited payment collection agent solely for the purpose of accepting the Fare, applicable Tolls and, depending on the region and/or if requested by you, applicable taxes and fees from the User on your behalf via the payment processing functionality facilitated by the Uber Services; and (ii) agree that payment made by User to Company (or to an Affiliate of Company acting as an agent of Company) shall be considered the same as payment made directly by User to you*.


But the reality is Uber often pays us more than collected from the pax. This establishes a transaction between Uber and the driver where the pax is not involved. You focus on one detail and miss the rest of the picture. 
If you look on the receipt you get from many dry cleaners, it says they are not responsible for lost, stolen, or damaged items. This is bullshit. Just because something is written doesn't make it true.


----------



## Rat

Xylphan said:


> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. As pointed out by Michael-Cleveland, the contract you agreed to EXPLICITLY STATES that you are an independent contractor. You AUTHORIZE Uber to act as a payment collector. For services rendered by Uber, you PAY them a cut of the fare.
> 
> Absolutely none of that is legally ambiguous.


Uber pays us bonuses and other incentives that they do not collect from the passenger. So....ambiguity!!!


----------



## Xylphan

Rat said:


> Uber pays us bonuses and other incentives that they do not collect from the passenger. So....ambiguity!!!


Not in the slightest. Those are not wages. A wage has a very specific meaning. There is no clause that prevents Uber from incentivizing it's contractors through various means, or adding said incentives to the existing contract.

You are not a registered employee with Uber. You have no employee record. You do not receive a W-2. You do not receive a wage. You are a contractor, period. There is no legal ambiguity here.


----------



## rembrandt

Is there any objective definition of independent contractor under federal jurisdiction by federal law. We need to see how an Uber driver fits to that definition.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Rat said:


> But the reality is Uber often pays us more than collected from the pax. This establishes a transaction between Uber and the driver where the pax is not involved. You focus on one detail and miss the rest of the picture.
> If you look on the receipt you get from many dry cleaners, it says they are not responsible for lost, stolen, or damaged items. This is bullshit. Just because something is written doesn't make it true.


Liability limits on consumer products and services (as in your dry cleaning example) have nothing to do with labor contract law. Apples and oranges. As I said - good luck with trying to make your case in a court of law.



Rat said:


> Uber pays us bonuses and other incentives that they do not collect from the passenger. So....ambiguity!!!


No, I'm afraid not.
Just because Uber or Lyft puts in place programs that are an incentive for their customers (riders or drivers) to use their system is not a determining factor - or even relevant factor - as to their relationship with their customers.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

rembrandt said:


> Is there any objective definition of independent contractor under federal jurisdiction by federal law. We need to see how an Uber driver fits to that definition.


IRS definition of Worker Classification:
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-defined

IRS basic info on worker classification:
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc762.html

IRS: Determining Worker Classification:
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/smal...ependent-contractor-self-employed-or-employee


----------



## rembrandt

Michael - Cleveland said:


> IRS definition of Worker Classification:
> https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-defined
> 
> IRS basic info on worker classification:
> https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc762.html
> 
> IRS: Determining Worker Classification:
> https://www.irs.gov/businesses/smal...ependent-contractor-self-employed-or-employee


I see that only obstacles between Uber and it's customers ( drivers and riders) are the Sherman Act and some restrictions that Uber exercises over it's drivers as far as independent contractor status is concerned. Hence , it appears that a SCOTUS ruling on this regard can easily statisfy all parties involved over the disputes once and for all. Everyone should respect the SCOTUS rulings.


----------



## Rat

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Liability limits on consumer products and services (as in your dry cleaning example) have nothing to do with labor contract law. Apples and oranges. As I said - good luck with trying to make your case in a court of law.
> 
> No, I'm afraid not.
> Just because Uber or Lyft puts in place programs that are an incentive for their customers (riders or drivers) to use their system is not a determining factor - or even relevant factor - as to their relationship with their customers.


The example shows writing something down doesn't mean it determined anything. It is illegal to subsidize a contractor. Uber doesn't follow its contract often, doesn't follow municipal or state laws. Uber operates quasi legally. The hammer will fall at some point. Your slavish devotion to your master is not a virtue.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Rat said:


> The example shows writing something down doesn't mean it determined anything. It is illegal to subsidize a contractor. Uber doesn't follow its contract often, doesn't follow municipal or state laws. Uber operates quasi legally. The hammer will fall at some point. Your slavish devotion to your master is not a virtue.


I used to think this way too.
Uber has ridden roughshod over every state and municipality which hasn't dropped a complete firewall to stonewall them.
Much of Europe and Asia has stonewalled them.

Everyone else on the globe eventually submits to Ubers will.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Rat said:


> The example shows writing something down doesn't mean it determined anything. It is illegal to subsidize a contractor. Uber doesn't follow its contract often, doesn't follow municipal or state laws. Uber operates quasi legally. The hammer will fall at some point. Your slavish devotion to your master is not a virtue.


Your stupid characterization aside [you know someone has no facts or information to support their view when they resort to personal attacks and characterizations], the reality (as you like to call it) as of now, supports my assertions.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

rembrandt said:


> I see that only obstacles between Uber and it's customers ( drivers and riders) are the Sherman Act and some restrictions that Uber exercises over it's drivers as far as independent contractor status is concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> If it were that simple, it would have been resolved many, many months - years - ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...it appears that a SCOTUS ruling on this regard can easily statisfy [sic] all parties involved over the disputes once and for all.
Click to expand...

 I suspect that long before a case makes it before the SCOTUS, congress will be lobbied to create legislation that addresses worker classification in the gig economy. It is in all parties' interest for congress to update the labor laws enacted via the FLSA. Any case that makes it before the SCOTUS now, would likely result in a 4-4 split decision - which would leave in place whatever the federal appeals courts have ruled.


----------



## rembrandt

rembrandt said:


> I see that only obstacles between Uber and it's customers ( drivers and riders) are the Sherman Act and some restrictions that Uber exercises over it's drivers as far as independent contractor status is concerned. Hence , it appears that a SCOTUS ruling on this regard can easily statisfy all parties involved over the disputes once and for all.





Michael - Cleveland said:


> I suspect that long before a case makes it before the SCOTUS, congress will be lobbied to create legislation that addresses worker classification in the gig economy. It is in all parties' interest for congress to update the labor laws enacted via the FLSA. Any case that makes it before the SCOTUS now, would likely result in a 4-4 split decision - which would leave in place whatever the federal appeals courts have ruled.


The first Sherman Act hearing is scheduled in November this year. Let us wait and see.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

rembrandt said:


> The first Sherman Act hearing is scheduled in November this year. Let us wait and see.


That's a BS case (asking the court to find complicity between Uber Drivers and Kalanick!). And it's not before the SCOTUS.
I wish there were a legit anti-trust claim before a court somewhere... but this one ain't it.


----------



## Bolympia

Euius said:


> That's $33/hour
> 
> For ten seconds. It "kicks in" at every light


What the hell are you talking about? Since you don't have enough sense to understand what I'm trying to say I break it down for you again; Now pay attention:

It does not charge 55 cents a minute while the taxi is moving, and it does not charge 55 cents every time the taxi stops It only charges 55 cents a per cumulative minute while the taxi is completely stopped. For example, if you sit at one stop light for 20 seconds, then another stop light for 20 seconds, then a third stop light for 20 seconds, you will get charged 55 cents once because the time is added up cumulatively to one minute. Understand?


----------



## 4736353377384555736

Xylphan said:


> Not in the slightest. Those are not wages. A wage has a very specific meaning. There is no clause that prevents Uber from incentivizing it's contractors through various means, or adding said incentives to the existing contract.
> 
> You are not a registered employee with Uber. You have no employee record. You do not receive a W-2. You do not receive a wage. You are a contractor, period. There is no legal ambiguity here.


The problem with your argument is you're speaking as if all jurisdictions are the same. In California at least, the contract does not determine whether or not someone is an independent contractor. There are statutes and, more importantly, _court interpretations of those statutes_, which determine whether or not someone is an employee.

This is for public policy reasons. If employers could simply write contracts calling employees contractors, then every employer would do so and there would be no employees because no employer really wants to provide employee benefits if it doesn't have to. The California legislature stepped in decades ago and said, "WE will decide who is an employee so as to prevent abuse," and the courts have been interpreting those laws ever since. In California, the contract does NOT determine if you're a contractor. It might be -- and probably is -- different in, say, Texas or Zimbabwe.

Furthermore, as any lawyer will tell you, everything in the law is open to interpretation. There is ALWAYS legal ambiguity.

IAAL


----------



## KevinH

I think many of the issues here are very similar to labor issues raised by taxicab drivers and brought before the National Labor Relations Board. If one Googles "NLRB vs taxi" and read the judgments of the NLRB and the appellate courts you will see that the NLRB frequently rules in favor of the drivers being reclassified as employees but you will also see what specific issues the appeals courts look at when evaluating those NLRB rulings. In most cases the appellate courts are primarily looking at issues of control. In many cases, the appellate courts overrule the NLRB decisions but in a few others they uphold the NLRB's ruling that the driver were misclassified as independent contractors. Many times these issues come before the NLRB

There are three cases where the taxi company added means of control that allowed the NLRB and the appeals court to rule that an employer relationship had been established.
In each of these cases, the taxi company required drivers to accept jobs, restrained them from soliciting work independently or created other constraints.

Two of these cases occurred in my San Francisco Bay Area. And involved rather simple issues of control.
Friendly Cab of Oakland got the contract to shuttle Fed Ex flight crews between Fed Ex terminals at OAA and SFO. In order to fulfill those orders, they required their drivers to accept those dispatched jobs. Friendly Cab also prohibited their drivers from soliciting directly to passengers.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 70 v. FRIENDLY CAB COMPANY INC GRKWSS In 2008


----------



## KevinH

The second one involved Stanford Yellow Cab of Mountain View which had corporate and hotel accounts. They required their drivers to accept jobs and prohibited them from working directly with customers. 
In both of these two cases, the NLRB relied on control issues that were common in previous NLRB rulings.

The third one involves AAA Transportation/Yellow Cab of Tucson and many legal blogs and forums believe that this ruling is very relevant to Uber and other TNCs. While some of the issues were ones present in the above two cases, the NLRB administrator (Overstreet) saw a unique aspect of one standard that the courts use, and that is the opportunity/risk for profit or loss. In this case the standard was applied to the driver's ability to control the amount of money or to "hustle" business as they saw fit. The court found that in the Tucson case most of the work was radio dispatched as opposed to dense urban areas where the majority of taxi business is street flags and drivers can choose the work they want to do. Therefore the drivers were under the control of the taxi company as to how much money they could make. Legal pundits see this ruling as a direct threat to Uber 's business model as drivers cannot hustle their own business. In many areas, taxi drivers pay a fixed gate fee and keep all of the revenue that comes to them by all means. When the taxi company keeps a percentage or referral fee, they see that as a indicator of an employee relationship. Here is some of the detail of the ruling:

https://onlabor.org/2015/12/14/nlrb...ers-employees-and-uber-drivers-could-be-next/
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/28-RC-106979
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-allow-thousands-of-taxi-drivers-to-unionize/

With respect to the _extent of company control_ (the first factor considered), Overstreet found important that while drivers nominally pay fixed lease rates irrespective of earnings, in practice the company took measures that had the effect of creating a correlation between driver revenue and company revenue. In particular, the company adjusted lease rates and meter rates to control the number of vehicles in operation. Overstreet also cited economic realities that limited the flexibility of driver hours, noting that to cover fees drivers had to work 60 to 119 hours a week for average pay ranging from $40 to $140 per day, as well as the fact that most drivers leased vehicles on a weekly basis and paid the company on site daily. Finally, he cited how the company tracked driver locations, metered trips and credit card payments. In effect, drivers were dependent on the company's dispatch system which mandated drivers accept or reject trips assigned to them without knowing the length of trip or method of payment beforehand. Furthermore, drivers who attempted to work independently of the dispatch system were terminated, and hours and rules made it further futile for drivers to use vehicles independently. On balance, Overstreet found that the extent of control exercised by the company favored a finding of employment status. Such an application of the "control" factor has obvious parallels to that offered by Professor Sachs andJudge Chen in the Uber context.

Other factors were also found to support a finding of employment status. Overstreet concluded that drivers were not engaged in a _distinct occupation or business_ since the company held itself out as a taxicab company and drivers operated taxicabs in the name of the company. He also found the _level of direction by the company_ was significant, as despite the lack of impractical in-vehicle personal supervision the company used its dispatch system to restrict the information provided drivers such that trips were in effect assigned. Next, Overstreet determined there was limited _skill_ required to work as a driver and very limited training provided. Since drivers did not own their vehicles, meters, the facility from which they operated or the dispatch system, the company provided _instrumentalities, tools, and place of work_. The _length of employment_ was also found to support employment status, as there was a strong economic incentive for drivers to lease on a weekly basis. Drivers engaged in the _regular business of the company_, providing taxicab services marketed by the company to the public that were the very core of its business. Drivers were also found to primarily engage in the _principal's business_, since in practice they were constrained from using vehicles for other purposes by the company's advertising limitations and lease rates. As Professor Sachs conveyed to Steven Greenhouse, Uber drivers are similarly constrained with respect to advertising (thus primarily engaged in the principal's business) and their inability to select trips (thus subject to the principal's direction).

Furthermore, Overstreet found that the company's _method of payment _of drivers favored a finding of employee status, as in practice drivers almost always charged the meter rate and obtained calls through the dispatch system. Payment for voucher calls was directly controlled by the company, and the company used a security deposit / payment plan system in an attempt to normalize weekly net driver income. In effect, Overstreet concluded that the company's establishment of a regulated and controlled rate of driver pay and customer charges outweighed the fact that it did not provide fringe benefits or withhold taxes from driver pay.

Notably, Overstreet found the _parties' understanding of the relationship_ to be inconclusive. While leases and orientation materials made it clear the company considered drivers to be independent contractors, they were unilaterally set by the company. Driver testimony and support of the union representation petition indicated some drivers considered themselves employees.

Finally, Overstreet found with respect to _entrepreneurial opportunity_ that drivers had "a theoretical but not actual opportunity for entrepreneurial loss or gain," supporting his finding of employment status. He cited limitations on the ability of drivers to sell, transfer, assign or sublet leases. Since drivers had to work long hours to afford their leases, they effectively could not work for other companies, and the company's practices dis-incentivized short leases and limited opportunities of drivers to market themselves to the public. Overstreet also found important the drivers' reliance on the dispatch system for business and their lack of input regarding important business decisions. Here again, a comparison to Uber is in order; as Professor Sachs noted, Uber's take-rate structure could be seen as reducing a driver's entrepreneurial opportunity."​


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

TwoFiddyMile said:


> The little guy helper...
> More education than brains, and doesn't double check her data.
> 
> Must hurt to be one upped by a dirty cabbie


Yo TwoFiddlyMile, you're right. My apologies on the 9 billion--for some odd reason I was thinking we did get that high.

It may be for some more academical thinking on the maths behind that really not appropriate here, and may be just confusion, but either way, you're right on that point.

My apologies again--and sorry I couldn't read and reply sooner. The night I posted this I found-out a relative is dying (he's been just "gone" and unfindable for a few years, turns out he was homeless and wanted to stay away due to some more dysfunctional family, but has no choice now). So I was hit hard and also talking to my long-lost cousin the past few evenings.


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

phillipzx3 said:


> No...the people at the top are brilliant. They suckered morons into believing they had a business with Uber as their "partner."
> 
> Those at the top of Uber are pocketing millions of $$. How much have YOU made via Uber? A few thousand, TOPS.
> 
> So tell me again, who's the moron?


Just adding for folks here: our normal public discourse is something like football fans or jeers: back-and-forth jeers and jabs.

Thing is, you don't get far like this: you aren't simply divided and conquered, neither person on either side gets to learn from the other.

So you may notice, I may rant-off a ton of stuff...but I'm not insulting people here directly. Even from people who just don't like what I post, I find I learn quite a bit by not dismissing them. They may even be totally wrong on all kinds of things...but there is gold in them coal veins. e.g. response:



wpguy1967 said:


> Let's expose some myths:
> 
> The people running Uber are getting filthy rich! Incorrect, most of their compensation is tied to private stock options that they can't touch. If the company crashes, they are penniless.


Each of these quotes has a valuable point.


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

Michael - Cleveland said:


> If they cannot move to self-driven cars and the courts determine that drivers are employees, the future of the company itself rests entirely on 'Plan B' - if they have one.


Investors tend to advise YOU DO NOT INVEST IN A COMPANY WITH EXIT STRATEGIES because you want people committed with their behinnies on the line. Uber has a lot of investors...


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

Rat said:


> The app doesn't get you from point A to point B. Selling technology is what makes you a tech company. Uber sells transportation. Nobody is paying for the $200 app.3


This doesn't "get it": Uber sells a booking service, and collects a commission--by processing payment.

That's it.

That is why they aren't in transportation: they just had to create the market for the other stuff. This kind of "create the markets you need" thinking has been standard for hyper-valuable/cash-flow-immense businesses for a long time, and Kotler & others write about it all the time for the kinds of literature read in business circles.


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

Michael - Cleveland said:


> yup... of course there's also a difference between the 'bleeding edge' and the 'cutting edge'. Right now Uber is on the bleeding edge - and it would not be surprising to see it go under after having paid the price for the learning curve that a newcomer to the industry would be able to take advantage of. Enter, JUNO?


This is sound thinking. :~)

This is the kind of problem for which business authors talk of a "last-mover advantage."


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

Karl Marx said:


> Drivers will not be part of the internet of things. Humans get tired, they need to be hired or fired. Their just very complicated biology that have an existence that has a slow start and a quick end. What responsible info-capitalist would want to have anything to do with such a complicated liability.
> In 1997, Kelly discussed the new foundations of a post-capitalist society, "It is global. It favours intangible things-ideas, information and relationships. And it is intensely interlinked. These three attributes produce a new type of marketplace and society." If you're hoping that Uber will capitulate and pay a man a proper amount even anywhere close to a cab fare than you're in the wrong game. You are for all practical purposes living the life of a digital slave. Unfortunately the American economy has 10 of millions of people behind you that would trade everything to be in your place. We all need to reread Orwell and remember to, "Love Big Brother."


Or you bone-up on gaining the skills necessary in the new world. Not long ago the idea that everyone should be able to read was absurd: preposterous...

Not long ago, the same was said for basic maths skills.

Today, everyone is said to probably need to gain international experience and inter-cultural sensitivity, basics in business, and probably know something about computing (MS Windows & Office are not what they meant, but are things that hide and hindered the transition to real computing).

Tomorrow, it's probably at least some coding--especially the problem-solving skills. I already blow peers out of the water by scripting tasks that businesses pay 1000s of hours of wages for: my scripts run in under a few minutes to do the same.

In my experience (going abroad) the US is 40 years behind other nations. They had to rebuild after WWII (then the destructive grinding-down of communism). And across the world, knowledge in mechanics, electronics, and even IT and programming has or is becoming very basic knowledge that many people have. If not these things, then knowledge of engineering of some kind or another. If not any of those, then business: the Chinese (supposedly Communist) already put those who are found by testing not to be university-level material through trade and business schools in the first, second, and third-tier cities (that's about 500,000,000 people).


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

Freebyrdie said:


> The very fabric of the economy is dependent on planned obsolescence so it keeps people buying


This definitely occurs but its largely an accident: they figured-out years back that if you build something to optimize for price and features, the number of purchasers (along with your profits) skyrockets. So less-solid came about because of it, but immediately speaking things must be "solid enough." I have a 25 year-old HP computer that chugs-along...but my far-less-durable computer of more recent vintage is 10,000X (easily) more powerful in every way.

I expect the HP can continue to chug-along for another 20 years if I let it (and wanted to pay the electrical bill) but the bills alone are sufficient to buy many more newer computers over that time.


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

TwoFiddyMile said:


> The little guy helper...
> More education than brains, and doesn't double check her data.
> 
> Must hurt to be one upped by a dirty cabbie


Not at all. I don't think of conversations as one-upsmanship and I'm glad to be corrected.

That way I actually learn from those...who have something to say.

You know, actual arguments. Real substantial content and thinking rather than smiles and jokes and jeers.

Last I checked, one sort of thing actually helps people to figure-out their situation, reorient themselves, and gain new ways forward.

The other stagnates people in prejudice and attitude. The latter may make them feel better but it's a long-term loss not just to them, but everyone who would have benefited from their better outlook, thinking, and attempts at making their world better--which benefits everyone.

p.s. Why in the world would I think someone doing honest work selling their services is dirty? Why would you call cabbies "dirty"? I am the son of a working man, and surrounded by working men, and have nothing but respect for working people--period. I've done trench work, crawl-through walls, and came home black every day for a year once due to the job I did: my room mate sprayed me down with Lysol in the entry way of the house before I could continue every. day.

Sheesh.


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

Xylphan said:


> It's a fact. By law, you are an independent contractor, not an employee. Uber provides the service of matching riders to contractors. In return, Uber receives a cut of the fare. The rider pays you, not Uber.
> 
> That's why Uber doesn't have to (and doesn't care really) if you make minimum wage. They don't have to provide benefits, health coverage, vacation pay, or handle your taxes. You don't receive a W-2. You really are a business entity, which is why you have to be careful with how you handle things. It's completely different from how a normal wage job works.


This.

People don't "get it." Or don't want to.

In a world of honesty and goodness, people would be shouting from the rooftops "don't bring your expectations from wage work to Uber, or just don't Uber because you'll screw yourself up."

I know no SBO who doesn't do 80+ hours a week, and many make less than minimum wage regularly (especially in slow periods): it's when they can sell or cash-out (if they ever can) that they'll recoup more value.


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

Rat said:


> You parrot Uber's "independent contractor" lie. This makes you an active supporter. Uber is paying in excess of what they collect from the riders in incentives. Therefore, any court will find that we are indeed employees. Note that we receive no funds whatever from the pax.


I hate to break this to you: but even Justice Ginsburg has been getting fed-up with rationalizations and asking those who come before the highest court to contest contracts "if you didn't like the terms, why did you sign it?"

You see, it's gotten to the point of people just suing everyone and everything whenever they don't like something that even the most amenable to social concern are fed-up with the pathetic childishness and lack of personal responsibility and integrity to hold to their agreements.

Hell, the Supremes keep taking these cases because the lower courts keep trying to override their decisions with new bull-oney theories and rationalizations.

DON'T SIGN THINGS YOU DON'T AGREE WITH!

And never, ever tell judges (lawyers) that "well it was wrong and I'm lazy and didn't want to read it" because they don't respect that junk: ever think about the mountains of junk (most legislation and most contracts are horribly written) that they have to read through?


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

Michael - Cleveland said:


> IRS definition of Worker Classification:
> https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-defined
> 
> IRS basic info on worker classification:
> https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc762.html
> 
> IRS: Determining Worker Classification:
> https://www.irs.gov/businesses/smal...ependent-contractor-self-employed-or-employee


The courts' infamous words in many IRS cases: "you follow the government's guidance to your own peril."


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

Freebyrdie said:


> Her take on pharma could not be more uninformed.


Before the chemo's damage to my brain began to manifest as a progressive degenerative disease I was studying pre-med with an emphasis on looking at natural and herbal sources of medicines.

Methinks you're not serious.


----------



## Rat

thelittleguyhelper said:


> I hate to break this to you: but even Justice Ginsburg has been getting fed-up with rationalizations and asking those who come before the highest court to contest contracts "if you didn't like the terms, why did you sign it?"
> 
> You see, it's gotten to the point of people just suing everyone and everything whenever they don't like something that even the most amenable to social concern are fed-up with the pathetic childishness and lack of personal responsibility and integrity to hold to their agreements.
> 
> Hell, the Supremes keep taking these cases because the lower courts keep trying to override their decisions with new bull-oney theories and rationalizations.
> 
> DON'T SIGN THINGS YOU DON'T AGREE WITH!
> 
> And never, ever tell judges (lawyers) that "well it was wrong and I'm lazy and didn't want to read it" because they don't respect that junk: ever think about the mountains of junk (most legislation and most contracts are horribly written) that they have to read through?


Ginsburg thinks abortion is mentioned in the Constitution. I doubt the Supremes would ever hear such a contest, so bringing them up is irrevelant


----------



## phillipzx3

thelittleguyhelper said:


> This doesn't "get it": Uber sells a booking service, and collects a commission--by processing payment.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> That is why they aren't in transportation: they just had to create the market for the other stuff. This kind of "create the markets you need" thinking has been standard for hyper-valuable/cash-flow-immense businesses for a long time, and Kotler & others write about it all the time for the kinds of literature read in business circles.


There are cab companies all across this country that do nothing more than connect passengers with a ride and process CC payments. Yet they're considered to be in transportation, and Uber is not? There are many , many driver owned cabs....just like there are many, many driver owned Uber/Lyft cars.

So why the difference in treatment (by city officials)?


----------



## phillipzx3

thelittleguyhelper said:


> Before the chemo's damage to my brain began to manifest as a progressive degenerative disease I was studying pre-med with an emphasis on looking at natural and herbal sources of medicines.
> 
> Methinks you're not serious.


How's your battle going? I've been involved with at least 100 people fighting different battles with cancer.

Best of luck in your fight.

Phil


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

thelittleguyhelper said:


> Yo TwoFiddlyMile, you're right. My apologies on the 9 billion--for some odd reason I was thinking we did get that high.
> 
> It may be for some more academical thinking on the maths behind that really not appropriate here, and may be just confusion, but either way, you're right on that point.
> 
> My apologies again--and sorry I couldn't read and reply sooner. The night I posted this I found-out a relative is dying (he's been just "gone" and unfindable for a few years, turns out he was homeless and wanted to stay away due to some more dysfunctional family, but has no choice now). So I was hit hard and also talking to my long-lost cousin the past few evenings.


Sorry for your loss.
I am glad you were incorrect, 9 billion would have shocked me to no end.
7.5 billion hairless apes is alarming enough.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

KevinH said:


> I think many of the issues here are very similar to labor issues raised by taxicab drivers and brought before the National Labor Relations Board. If one Googles "NLRB vs taxi" and read the judgments of the NLRB and the appellate courts you will see that the NLRB frequently rules in favor of the drivers being reclassified as employees but you will also see what specific issues the appeals courts look at when evaluating those NLRB rulings. In most cases the appellate courts are primarily looking at issues of control. In many cases, the appellate courts overrule the NLRB decisions but in a few others they uphold the NLRB's ruling that the driver were misclassified as independent contractors. Many times these issues come before the NLRB
> 
> There are three cases where the taxi company added means of control that allowed the NLRB and the appeals court to rule that an employer relationship had been established.
> In each of these cases, the taxi company required drivers to accept jobs, restrained them from soliciting work independently or created other constraints.
> 
> Two of these cases occurred in my San Francisco Bay Area. And involved rather simple issues of control.
> Friendly Cab of Oakland got the contract to shuttle Fed Ex flight crews between Fed Ex terminals at OAA and SFO. In order to fulfill those orders, they required their drivers to accept those dispatched jobs. Friendly Cab also prohibited their drivers from soliciting directly to passengers.
> 
> NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 70 v. FRIENDLY CAB COMPANY INC GRKWSS In 2008


good stuff, but you are conflating NLRB rulings (which allow workers to organize and bargain collectively) with FLSA protections which are administered by the Department of Labor and the IRS. The NLRB rulings have no impact on the tax and benefit status of workers under the FLSA (ie: unemployment insurance, workers comp, minimum wage, overtime, etc.).


----------



## Lowestformofwit

Did Warren Buffett ever invest in cabs?; did he ever invest in Uber or other ride-share operations?
If the answer is NO, then it says a lot about the Personal Transport industry, and its profitability, as a whole.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Lowestformofwit said:


> Did Warren Buffett ever invest in cabs?; did he ever invest in Uber or other ride-share operations?
> If the answer is NO, then it says a lot about the Personal Transport industry, and its profitability, as a whole.


Correct.
When I owned and operated 5 cabs. I didn't make a hell of a lot more profit than I did at 1 cab.
2 and 3 cabs was better.

Once I hit 5, my fleet expenses hit $100,000.00 per year.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Correct.
> When I owned and operated 5 cabs. I didn't make a hell of a lot more profit than I did at 1 cab.
> 2 and 3 cabs was better.
> 
> Once I hit 5, my fleet expenses hit $100,000.00 per year.


Confirming my personal mantra that "there's an optimum size for every business, and don't ever forget it".
The only thing I forgot, apparently, was to tell Travis!


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Lowestformofwit said:


> Confirming my personal mantra that "there's an optimum size for every business, and don't ever forget it".
> The only thing I forgot, apparently, was to tell Travis!


I may have unflattened the curve with another 5 cabs, but I'll never know.
Cause Uber, then revenue went away.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

TwoFiddyMile said:


> I may have unflattened the curve with another 5 cabs, but I'll never know.
> Cause Uber, then revenue went away.


Good luck if you'd been trying to find drivers for 10 cars, even if they weren't on 24 hour duty. I struggle to man 6, and I'm 
paying AUD 30.00 to 35.00 per hour. Found I'd overstepped the mark when I briefly ran 7 cars.
The most damaging aspect of Uber has been to initially lower everyone's (riders and drivers) perception of what it really costs to run cars for hire. This perception rapidly spread upwards, to the very economic top of the personal transport industry (limo's), which were already affected by the GFC.
Perhaps premium service cabs will survive at the top of the tree, but limo's are in for a rough trot here.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Lowestformofwit said:


> Good luck if you'd been trying to find drivers for 10 cars, even if they weren't on 24 hour duty. I struggle to man 6, and I'm
> paying AUD 30.00 to 35.00 per hour. Found I'd overstepped the mark when I briefly ran 7 cars.
> The most damaging aspect of Uber has been to initially lower everyone's (riders and drivers) perception of what it really costs to run cars for hire. This perception rapidly spread upwards, to the very economic top of the personal transport industry (limo's), which were already affected by the GFC.
> Perhaps premium service cabs will survive at the top of the tree, but limo's are in for a rough trot here.


Brother, by the time UberX was a year old I couldnt man 5 cars. I anchored dayshift starting at 03:00 and dispatched til 19:00.
I'm lucky I didn't end up in. Loony bin.
When my buyer initially offered me 1/3 of my company's valuation, I scoffed.
Two months later I asked "can you really raise that cash? Gotta be cash".
I'm lucky I got out and got paid.
If only I had a complete exit plan and didn't still own one Cab...
Good luck mate I know your pain.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

Lowestformofwit said:


> Did Warren Buffett ever invest in cabs?; did he ever invest in Uber or other ride-share operations?
> If the answer is NO, then it says a lot about the Personal Transport industry, and its profitability, as a whole.


Warren Buffet understands ice cream. So he bought Dairy Queen.
Just because he doesn't '_understand_' taxi or rideshare transportation, doesn't mean that someone else does not.
Suggesting that an industry is only a viable investment if Warren Buffet invests in it (while not a bad investment practice, per se) would be suggesting that those industries in which Buffet invests are the only viable investments. And that's simply not true.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

Michael,
You may have misinterpreted my intention in asking the question about Buffet.
If you re-read my post, you'll note I asked a conditional question, via the "If" at the start of the second sentence. I was actually searching for an answer - either YES or NO.
Perhaps Buffet did enough research to understand Personal Transport and decided that it was not for his portfolio. Or perhaps he is an unpublicised investor in either or both divisions. The privacy he surrounds himself with makes it hard to work out.
From reading books about him, he's not one to miss a good opportunity and has acute long-term vision, so I'm being curious, not outright dismissive of the Industry.


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

Rat said:


> Ginsburg thinks abortion is mentioned in the Constitution. I doubt the Supremes would ever hear such a contest, so bringing them up is irrevelant


The point is Ginsburg has traditionally been a very hard thinker...who does what she wants (not what texts say), including ignoring all contracts: including the biggest one of all (the Constitution).

When Ginsburg starts ignoring all arguments including "social" issues to ask "why then did you sign it", here famously-hard thinking seems to have become fed-up with...people trying to use courts to get out of their agreed-to terms.

That's pretty significant, and why I bring it up. It's also perhaps why the current chief's negotiating consensus at court was significant enough that we began seeing mainstream outlets speaking of "Lochner" (something most people aren't aware of in any way at all).


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

phillipzx3 said:


> There are cab companies all across this country that do nothing more than connect passengers with a ride and process CC payments. Yet they're considered to be in transportation, and Uber is not?


Ever hear of the lunch theory of justice? Or how regulators *always* classify their targets in an adversarial manner placing them under their oversight and control (even if a logician would not)? Did you know that the government agents who define money laundering and racketeering tend to formally include "not disclosing EXISTENCE of income or assets" (meaning if you pick-up a usable piece of wood, or a penny, then according to their reasoning you're a criminal!--p.s. that's no joke, it was leaked a while back and had people going "well duh, they're controlling [something here that's not very nice]).

Because politics. Unfortunately, valid classifications tend to take ARMIES of professionals to crush officials (who are usually able to do that to anyone who challenges them). I'm obsessive about finding proper classifications (because else people cannot talk objectively) as many people with brain conditions like mine are and find a common theme in works by metaphysicians, philosophers, scientists, academics, and lawyers ("scholars of law"--which US attorneys are not, and can get themselves into hot water for using that term in any other Anglo jurisdiction): that the law--that the legal systems--are not just unobjective but illogical and you get outcomes "based on what the judge had for lunch."

If companies *declare* themselves to be cab companies, on the other hand, then that is their fault. Part of it may be the fact they're the ones (a) getting licensed that way, (b) leasing the cars, and (c) making sure the cars fit the definition of "cab" or "taxi" under statute (so that authorities won't harass them). Government officials have no duty (as far as I know) to counter/correct you in your favor (though some far-less-corrupt ones have had notable stories about contacting misclassified-by-declaration companies and returning un-owed taxes).



phillipzx3 said:


> So why the difference in treatment (by city officials)?


Uber realized that "cab" and "taxi", as legal artifices (which must therefore be strictly--not subjectively--defined), had (everywhere they checked) strict definitions which told "what constitutes 'cab'/'taxi' under the law", so they simply (a) made sure they did not fit such definitions; a post-facto change to laws to reign-in Uber could not just be seen as bad faith but malicious, motivated by corruption--the FTC itself has been condemning the PUC-style cab industry for several decades as basically a mob operation; it would also run afoul of the prohibition against impairment of obligation of contracts.

As to the other points, they (b) didn't require certain cars at all, (c) didn't declare themselves as a cab/taxi company or seek PUC blessing as one (see a), and (d) insured they set-up and operated strictly as a booking service.

If cab companies across the country do no more than connect passengers and process, now that Uber has crushed PUCs across the country trying to legislate Uber & Lyft into the cab statutes (when that is a power reserved to the legislature), the cab companies can EASILY (a) change form to TNC, and (b) adopt best-practices to compete with Uber and Lyft.

Except they're notoriously coddled (because they controlled PUCs across the US) and lacking in creativity by this time: I don't know that 50,000,000,000 could save them or give them the edge needed to really compete on merits. I also don't think drivers can take yet more companies driving-down price trying to both expand/dominate the market.


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

phillipzx3 said:


> How's your battle going? I've been involved with at least 100 people fighting different battles with cancer.


It's weird--but thanks for asking. Very basically, like so many people it seems it's not the cancer itself that's getting to me: it's the after-effects. I'm beginning to see patterns that just took way too long to figure-out though, and adapting myself (life, how I earn my living, etc.) accordingly.

Right now I've been on an up-and-down ride for several years with my yearly average in terms of quality of life and earnings going up-up-up. The health-effects roller-coast is definitely a pain though. Hence why I've come to care about economic and other business matters so much.

Also why so much of Uber was exciting...and at the same time more and more disappointing. I like systems which eliminate regulatory burdens for the little guy. I don't like systems which then make it very difficult. And it's why I now tell people who ask "you only do it (unless you really want to run some maths and probabilistic operational methods) part time WITH Lyft."


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

TwoFiddyMile said:


> 7.5 billion hairless apes is alarming enough.


I don't really know...

Lots of our fears about population come from dystopian novels and Malthusian philosophy.

We never pay attention though, so often the things I see called "population studies" just regurgitate...multi-century old points from Malthus while fitting data to it.

Hence "philosophy is about examining origins of ideas so you don't fail to understand where your thoughts and tools to think actually come from." (As one professor I once had put it).

**IF** (big if) people behave, work hard as a society and develop, increased population always seems to result in all-around better conditions. We're past 3 or 4 predicted points of supposed ill and no-return and mass death and awfulness... and materially speaking (if not felt that way) we're better-off (on a global level, and usually on national levels).

More people--if they aren't trying to kill you and live well rather than irresponsibly to an extreme--is a good. If you ever get to go into ultra-compact Asian cities, despite governmental corruption being common in the former-communist areas, people often live very well even on very little: built-up buildings, infrastructure, public works, share space, plazas, and generally libertine views of where people can park and do business mean...well a very enjoyable environment.

I have friends ranging across every imaginable spectrum who have all found the same when going out of the US: just amazed at how good life actually is in supposedly "way overcrowded/super-dense" places. Most western cities and people I know cannot even imagine it. They look at news and see "oh gosh, pollution!" (which is a consequence of corruption in high places, and not large populations) and think it just must be awful to have "too many people."


----------



## thelittleguyhelper

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Brother, by the time UberX was a year old I couldnt man 5 cars.


Dang. 

You may not think I would but...well, so sorry to hear that man. Has to be VERY freakin' frustrating. Stinks to learn an industry and then have everything change.


----------

