# New York City's New Minimum Wage Law For Rideshare Drivers Might Actually Be Reducing Driver's Pay



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/14/new-york-citys-minimum-wage-law-for-ride
*New court documents suggest that the city's rideshare regulations have backfired in a big way*

Christian Britschgi|Mar. 14, 2019 1:25 pm

New York City's new minimum pay rules for rideshare drivers were intended to boost driver income, but they may be having the exact opposite effect.

On Tuesday, rideshare company Juno-which is currently suing city regulators over the new pay rules-filed court documents showing that their bookings are down some 30 percent for the month of February (when the new pay rules went into effect) and that average hourly compensation has fallen by 17 percent.

"Costs have increased for riders, demand for Juno's services has decreased, and hourly earnings for Juno's drivers have fallen," reads a memorandum filed by Juno, which warns that these effects "will only get worse" so long as the rules remain in place.

​The decline is particularly concerning, Juno CEO Ronen Ben David wrote in a separate court filing, because the company had been seeing business increase prior to the implementation of the new pay rules. Juno performs about 5 percent of rideshare rides in New York City, compared to about 20 percent for Lyft and 70 percent for Uber.

Lyft, which is also suing New York City regulators, reports that they, too, are seeing a decline in rides booked though their app, although it has not been as severe as the hit reported by Juno. Lyft estimates that the city's rideshare industry could see a $50 million decline in bookings in 2019.

In August of last year, the New York City Council passed a bill requiring the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC)-the regulator responsible for the rideshare industry and the target of Lyft and Juno's lawsuits-to come up with pay standards that would raise drivers' earnings to $17.22 an hour.

In December, the TLC did just that, issuing new driver pay rules built around a complicated formula that factors in an individual trip's time and length as well as a company's utilization rate (the amount of time drivers actually have a passenger in the car.)

In their lawsuits, Juno and Lyft object to the commission's rule on two grounds.

The first objection made by both companies is the way the TLC's driver pay formula employs the utilization rate. Without getting too in the weeds, the higher a company's utilization rate, the less it has to pay per-trip to its drivers. That advantages companies like Uber and Via, which both have higher utilization rates, by allowing them to pay drivers less for the exact same trip.

The Juno suit argues that companies with lower utilization rates will have to raise fares to cope with these higher costs, which scares away riders, further lowering their utilization rate and raising their per-trip costs, which requires more fare increases. The company says this vicious cycle will ultimately kill off smaller services.

Lyft also objects to the TLC's formula calculating pay on a per-trip basis, which the company argues both violates the city council law establishing pay standards, and creates distortions in the market.

A report from MIT Professor Catherine Tucker, filed as part of Lyft's lawsuit, argues that a rigid per-trip formula prevents companies from adjusting fares and driver pay to respond to changes in demand throughout the day.

Tucker's report also argues that the TLC's current formula rewards drivers for completing short, slow trips, as opposed to longer or faster rides-essentially creating an incentive for drivers to service riders in dense Manhattan at the expense of commuters in the city's outer boroughs. That incentive works against another of the city's goals, which is to reduce congestion in Manhattan. Starting in February, for-hire vehicles entering Manhattan have to pay a new fee designed to limit car trips on the island's gridlocked streets. Traditional cabs pay $2.50 per trip, while trips performed by rideshare companies are slapped with a $2.75 fee. Shared rides performed on UberPool or Lyft Line pay only a $.75 fee.

Disentangling the effects of the congestion surcharge and the fare hikes that followed the new minimum pay rules is difficult. Their combined effect is that rideshare trips are costing more, and people are taking fewer of them.

Thanks to perverse incentives contained in the TLC's pay rules, the decline in trips will likely not net out any improvements in congestion. As the market for rideshare rides shrinks, total driver compensation could start to fall as well. According to Juno's court filings, it already has.

Juno and Lyft's lawsuits are still ongoing. In February a judge issued a temporary restraining order against the TLC's new pay formula, but Lyft at least has chosen to continue to comply with the rules as its case works its way through the courts.

For now, it appears that if these new regulations "help" anyone, it will be Uber and the incumbent taxi industry and taxi medallion owners; many of whom have refinanced their medallions so many times that they are essentially underwater on an investment that is devalued by rideshare competition. There are already clear losers: passengers and smaller rideshare companies trying to earn their business.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Bull. If it's harming drivers' pay, it's because TNC's flooded the city with an obscene number of cars merely to keep wait times down.

Taxis are limited to 13.5 K for a reason, TNC's have more than ten times that number.

These companies just want to bankrupt everything in their path with venture capital funded artificially low prices and insane lack of regulation.


----------



## RDWRER (May 24, 2018)

Prices went up and the bottom rung passengers who can’t afford paying more than a bus fare stopped requesting rides. Who’d’ve thought...?


----------



## The_Solo (Feb 23, 2019)

Sadly it supports cheaper fares equal more money! Crap sucks.


----------



## racheljo (Nov 22, 2018)

RDWRER said:


> Prices went up and the bottom rung passengers who can't afford paying more than a bus fare stopped requesting rides. Who'd've thought...?


The min fare for riders is almost 3x the cost of the bus. It was like that even before the rate and fare hikes.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

> "Costs have increased for riders, demand for Juno's services has decreased, and hourly earnings for Juno's drivers have fallen," reads a memorandum filed by Juno, which warns that these effects "will only get worse" so long as the rules remain in place.


lol uh oh, it's doomsday because they were forced to atleast act like they were paying drivers a living wage


----------



## BurgerTiime (Jun 22, 2015)

So when forced to play by the rules they make less. Imagine that.


----------



## Funkmeister (Apr 6, 2017)

LOL [SMH] I sure the smart folks HAD to see this coming. For those who thought this (minimum wage) was a victory for the drivers, you are witnessing the beginning of the end.


----------



## Launchpad McQuack (Jan 8, 2019)

I've been reading the NYC sub-forum trying to get a sense from the drivers there how the new rules have affected their earnings. Unfortunately, every discussion in that sub-forum pretty quickly devolves into taxi drivers bashing Uber drivers and vice versa, so none of the information is all that informative.


----------



## badratings (Dec 24, 2018)

Funkmeister said:


> LOL [SMH] I sure the smart folks HAD to see this coming. For those who thought this (minimum wage) was a victory for the drivers, you are witnessing the beginning of the end.


Actually, the smart folks know that artificially low prices is destructive and unethical and should be corrected, even if it results in lower demand. If TNCs want to compete against taxis and each other, they can do it on the basis of quality and convenience. They must charge a fair price that covers the complete cost of the ride. I am all for competition against U/L, but allowing Juno to undercharge and underpay is not the right way.

Customers who stopped using TNC due to cost obviously had alternatives available (especially in NYC), and maybe they shouldn't be calling any taxis in the first place. It's not like individual driver earnings haven't dropped before even as TNCs were lowering prices, if TNC truly cared about driver earnings they would do something about driver saturation instead of blaming fair prices.


----------



## Funkmeister (Apr 6, 2017)

badratings said:


> Actually, the smart folks know that artificially low prices is destructive and unethical and should be corrected, even if it results in lower demand. If TNCs want to compete against taxis and each other, they can do it on the basis of quality and convenience. They must charge a fair price that covers the complete cost of the ride. I am all for competition against U/L, but allowing Juno to undercharge and underpay is not the right way.
> 
> Customers who stopped using TNC due to cost obviously had alternatives available (especially in NYC), and maybe they shouldn't be calling any taxis in the first place. It's not like individual driver earnings haven't dropped before even as TNCs were lowering prices, if TNC truly cared about driver earnings they would do something about driver saturation instead of blaming fair prices.


Damn, I actually don't disagree with you... other than the "unethical" part (nothing unethical in a capitalist society about lowering prices to beat the competition - it is what it is), you are right. Especially in New York. I typically expect troll responses in these forums and very little commentary of value but your statements were on point. Kudos!

Now I was corrected in the New York sub-forum and told there is no TNC there. Every rideshare company as well as taxis and livery services fall under "TLC" - Taxi Livery Commission. Things are a bit different than the rest of the country.

I actually appreciate both sides of the argument as the rideshare companies are doing what they have to do to gain market share while the TLC originals try to protect their segment with government assistance. All is fair in the business world. Having "fair" competition based on quality and convenience has never been the motif in any market field. It sounds nice but companies do whatever they have to do to get the edge they need and gain market share. Based on this information though with New York being a battlefront and precursor of where things can wind up for the rest of the country, "quality and convenience" will ultimately be the factors in who eventually comes out on top within the next few years. The only qualifier in New York is that public mass transit still is relatively cheap (compared to other major cities in the country) and is accessible and convenient which alters methods and outcomes.

The whole "minimum wage" has been a red herring. Most just don't know or understand it yet.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Someone has too many drivers, perhaps if you allowed natural selection to run it's course and stop inviting more, those drivers "losing money" will eventually start getting paid.

Volume =/= more pay for the driver, just you.

The way I see it is that rideshare companies will operate at a loss if they try to compensate for the zerg of drivers they hired at higher cost for the riders, it's basically doing what it was meant to do, regulate, hang tight because Uber will see it's effects too.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Funkmeister said:


> Damn, I actually don't disagree with you... other than the "unethical" part (nothing unethical in a capitalist society about lowering prices to beat the competition - it is what it is), you are right. Especially in New York. I typically expect troll responses in these forums and very little commentary of value but your statements were on point. Kudos!
> 
> Now I was corrected in the New York sub-forum and told there is no TNC there. Every rideshare company as well as taxis and livery services fall under "TLC" - Taxi Livery Commission. Things are a bit different than the rest of the country.
> 
> ...


Um, what 'government assistance' are you referring to re: the yellow industry? There isn't any. In fact, the government and regulatory agencies have done all they can to destroy the street hail rights yellow cab drivers and fleet owners were sold for a whole lot of money.

The truth is no company should be allowed to burn through 3-4 Billion every single year keeping rides artificially cheap. It's really a textbook definition of unfair competition, since Uber does virtual street hails and pays nothing for the Medallion.

There's a good reason taxis are limited to 13k, there were huge numbers of cars post-Depression and it was a disaster.


----------



## islanddriver (Apr 6, 2018)

Sorry somebody informed you wrong all Uber and Lyft drives in the suburbs are tnc. Tlc is taxi and limos


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

once you get to a point where there way too many drivers than riders in an attempt to keep wait time low obviously there aren't going to be enough trips between those drivers to make a profit

they need to find the point just like taxis where you have too many drivers and cap it


----------



## Funkmeister (Apr 6, 2017)

Hackenstein said:


> Um, what 'government assistance' are you referring to re: the yellow industry? There isn't any. In fact, the government and regulatory agencies have done all they can to destroy the street hail rights yellow cab drivers and fleet owners were sold for a whole lot of money.
> 
> The truth is no company should be allowed to burn through 3-4 Billion every single year keeping rides artificially cheap. It's really a textbook definition of unfair competition, since Uber does virtual street hails and pays nothing for the Medallion.
> 
> There's a good reason taxis are limited to 13k, there were huge numbers of cars post-Depression and it was a disaster.


Hmmm... from what I have gathered the policies and regulations created have helped to keep taxis and limos competitive with ride share in NYC.

My question to you, is why should a company not be allowed to burn through their capital if they so choose to run their business that way? It's nothing new. That's a general business practice - sometimes not efficient but plenty of companies have done it in this industry and others to undercut competition until one or the other bows out and then the victor can rest the rate to a more profitable level. I'm a New Yorker who loves the subway system and I remember how I remember how City Hall forced the IRT and BMT to keep prices artificially low to force them out of business before the consolidation. Oil, electricity, technology, medicine... pick an industry, at some point that strategy has been used.

As far as that 13K restriction, you know more than I do about it but as far as too many in the city, Darwinism will take care of that at some point. Those that can, will strive. Those that cannot, will find another line of work.



uberdriverfornow said:


> once you get to a point where there way too many drivers than riders in an attempt to keep wait time low obviously there aren't going to be enough trips between those drivers to make a profit
> 
> they need to find the point just like taxis where you have too many drivers and cap it


No they don't... free enterprise, the American way. If you want to make money, master what you do. Understand your target audience and your market. Let Darwinism thin the ranks. All of the complaining I hear in these forums, let's me know that it's in full effect.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Funkmeister said:


> Hmmm... from what I have gathered the policies and regulations created have helped to keep taxis and limos competitive with ride share in NYC.
> 
> My question to you, is why should a company not be allowed to burn through their capital if they so choose to run their business that way? It's nothing new. That's a general business practice - sometimes not efficient but plenty of companies have done it in this industry and others to undercut competition until one or the other bows out and then the victor can rest the rate to a more profitable level. I'm a New Yorker who loves the subway system and I remember how I remember how City Hall forced the IRT and BMT to keep prices artificially low to force them out of business before the consolidation. Oil, electricity, technology, medicine... pick an industry, at some point that strategy has been used.
> 
> As far as that 13K restriction, you know more than I do about it but as far as too many in the city, Darwinism will take care of that at some point. Those that can, will strive. Those that cannot, will find another line of work.


Medallions are an exclusive right to street hails. Uber does virtual street hails and pays nothing. That was a deliberate move on the part of regulators, deciding not to regulate.

Uber isn't functioning in a capitalist framework. They're a predatory company which has never made a dime. There's no way for any legitimate entity to compete with a company which can somehow keep getting handed another 10 Billion to toss down the drain. That is not competition.

Kindly stow the 'Darwinism' garbage.


----------



## Funkmeister (Apr 6, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> once you get to a point where there way too many drivers than riders in an attempt to keep wait time low obviously there aren't going to be enough trips between those drivers to make a profit
> 
> they need to find the point just like taxis where you have too many drivers and cap it


From my POV, Uber, Lyft and any other rideshare HS to do what they can in this environment to gain market share. They obviously want to keep wait time low for obvious reasons. That's their business strategy. They're suppose to do that. It's up to the drivers to figure out how to exist within that environment with those parameters. You are in business for yourself. You are not an employee. Your bottom line is profits. So you should be doing what is best for you within that situation. If you figure THAT out, you will make money.



Hackenstein said:


> Medallions are an exclusive right to street hails. Uber does virtual street hails and pays nothing. That was a deliberate move on the part of regulators, deciding not to regulate.
> 
> Uber isn't functioning in a capitalist framework. They're a predatory company which has never made a dime. There's no way for any legitimate entity to compete with a company which can somehow keep getting handed another 10 Billion to toss down the drain. That is not competition.
> 
> Kindly stow the 'Darwinism' garbage.


So you believe you are "entitled"... you are not. Unfortunately for you the paradigm has shifted. What you once believed is no longer true. Uber is absolutely functioning in a capitalist framework. You apparently just don't seem to understand how that "framework" works. They may or may not make a dime in the end but what they are doing is nothing new and an accepted practice. Darwinism at it's finest.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Funkmeister said:


> From my POV, Uber, Lyft and any other rideshare HS to do what they can in this environment to gain market share. They obviously want to keep wait time low for obvious reasons. That's their business strategy. They're suppose to do that. It's up to the drivers to figure out how to exist within that environment with those parameters. You are in business for yourself. You are not an employee. Your bottom line is profits. So you should be doing what is best for you within that situation. If you figure THAT out, you will make money.
> 
> 
> So you believe you are "entitled"... you are not. Unfortunately for you the paradigm has shifted. What you once believed is no longer true. Uber is absolutely functioning in a capitalist framework. You apparently just don't seem to understand how that "framework" works. They may or may not make a dime in the end but what they are doing is nothing new and an accepted practice. Darwinism at it's finest.


Good lord. Medallions were sold for a lot of money as the exclusive right to street hails. That does indeed mean you are ENTITLED to that exclusive right. You paid for it.

Stop pretending Uber is involved with legitimate Capitalism. It's a predatory use of venture capital, they lose 3-4 Billion dollars every single year keeping prices artificially cheap and supply unrelated to demand. They bought their way around a cap on numbers until their drivers started killing themselves, and are now suing to get it lifted. While yellows are limited to 13k out of necessity in an actual capitalistic framework.

Have uber adhere to the same legitimate environmental impact studies yellows have to adhere to for the public good. Let them 'compete' where they can't merely flood a city with 10x the number of cars needed in order to keep wait times down.

'Darwinism' that's seriously sad.


----------



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

badratings said:


> Actually, the smart folks know that artificially low prices is destructive and unethical and should be corrected, even if it results in lower demand. If TNCs want to compete against taxis and each other, they can do it on the basis of quality and convenience. They must charge a fair price that covers the complete cost of the ride. I am all for competition against U/L, but allowing Juno to undercharge and underpay is not the right way.
> 
> Customers who stopped using TNC due to cost obviously had alternatives available (especially in NYC), and maybe they shouldn't be calling any taxis in the first place. It's not like individual driver earnings haven't dropped before even as TNCs were lowering prices, if TNC truly cared about driver earnings they would do something about driver saturation instead of blaming fair prices.


Taxis arn't always called anyway.. and they are sometimes more convenient than uber because..

hey there's a taxi, i need a ride.. HEY TAXI! (literally that thought process)

See all these taxis lined up?









Think it's more convenient to call an uber here at this exact location your crazy. There's tons and tons of locations across the nation that while not to this extreme, same basic idea.

If uber loses (or virtually loses) it's price advantage you may see uber dwindling at places like airports bus stations, busy bar areas.. ect.

(and if your guessing the below area is an airport good guess, however it's the 2nd biggest theme park cab stand in Orlandoish, and the biggest in Orlando City limits. It was however designed like an airport ground transport hub.)

What NY looks like to me is the market correcting and uber losing business to other services because without a price advantage, they were getting an artificially high segment of the market with below cost rates.

Once uber starts operating at a profit they are going to bleed market share back to the taxis (and the public bus)


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Taxis arn't always called anyway.. and they are sometimes more convenient than uber because..
> 
> hey there's a taxi, i need a ride.. HEY TAXI! (literally that thought process)
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, their predatory unregulated garbage has already done serious harm to the MTA, to the point that f***ing yellows now have to pay the price, literally. And if the Gov and Mayor get their way, everyone will pay.


----------



## EphLux (Aug 10, 2018)

A lot of smoke and little light in this thread


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Funkmeister said:


> From my POV, Uber, Lyft and any other rideshare HS to do what they can in this environment to gain market share. They obviously want to keep wait time low for obvious reasons. That's their business strategy. They're suppose to do that. It's up to the drivers to figure out how to exist within that environment with those parameters. You are in business for yourself. You are not an employee. Your bottom line is profits. So you should be doing what is best for you within that situation. If you figure THAT out, you will make money.


I think any moron would understand that the call is not on Lyft to unilaterally reduce the number of their drivers, the call is on the TLC to do that for them.



KevinH said:


> https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/14/new-york-citys-minimum-wage-law-for-ride
> *New court documents suggest that the city's rideshare regulations have backfired in a big way*
> 
> Christian Britschgi|Mar. 14, 2019 1:25 pm
> ...


It should go without saying that just because Juno is saying it backfired doesn't mean it did. We all know they are lying through their teeth.

Obviously if it backfired it would be the DRIVERS that would be crying foul not the companies. But I think that's common sense.



Funkmeister said:


> Hmmm... from what I have gathered the policies and regulations created have helped to keep taxis and limos competitive with ride share in NYC.
> 
> My question to you, is why should a company not be allowed to burn through their capital if they so choose to run their business that way? It's nothing new. That's a general business practice - sometimes not efficient but plenty of companies have done it in this industry and others to undercut competition until one or the other bows out and then the victor can rest the rate to a more profitable level. I'm a New Yorker who loves the subway system and I remember how I remember how City Hall forced the IRT and BMT to keep prices artificially low to force them out of business before the consolidation. Oil, electricity, technology, medicine... pick an industry, at some point that strategy has been used.
> 
> ...


Lol is that how the taxi companies worked out when there were originally too many taxis on the road ?

No, they had to put a limit on the amount of taxis out there.

Do your research.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

The_Solo said:


> Sadly it supports cheaper fares equal more money! Crap sucks.


Less fares doesn't necessarily mean less profit. Just as an example, if a driver takes one 10 mile trip and makes $20 in an hour they will have more profit than if they take 4 trips paying $5.50 each for a total of $22 but ending up driving 20 miles to do it. Not to mention the extra wear and tear.

Less "fares" of course hurts the company, because miles don't affect their profit the way they do drivers.


----------



## Uber_Dubler (Apr 4, 2018)

Anyone surprised that Lyft and Juno are getting screwed while Uber is just waiting on the sidelines and doing pretty well with 70% of the market?


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

The only surprising thing about this news is...that some drivers are surprised by this news.

You force companies to increase their costs and expect the *workers* to benefit? Really? Somebody must be living in a dream world.


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 18, 2016)




----------



## Rosalita (May 13, 2018)

Yeah, maybe the government and the courts need to stay out of the way? Competition and full employment drives wages up not a guaranteed hourly wage. If another two or three companies came into the industry nation-wide, not just in certain cities like NYC, you'd first see a fare war, i.e., companies cutting fares to attract pax, then companies forced to increase driver pay in order to keep them, including paying bonuses for retention. If you want an hourly wage, you can find hourly wage. I'm not driving my car, putting the wear and tear on my vehicle, for a minimum wage.



JimKE said:


> The only surprising thing about this news is...that some drivers are surprised by this news.
> 
> You force companies to increase their costs and expect the *workers* to benefit? Really? Somebody must be living in a dream world.


It's not a "dream world" they live in. It's an uneducated about the economy world.


----------



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

Rosalita said:


> Yeah, maybe the government and the courts need to stay out of the way? Competition and full employment drives wages up not a guaranteed hourly wage. If another two or three companies came into the industry nation-wide, not just in certain cities like NYC, you'd first see a fare war, i.e., companies cutting fares to attract pax, then companies forced to increase driver pay in order to keep them, including paying bonuses for retention. If you want an hourly wage, you can find hourly wage. I'm not driving my car, putting the wear and tear on my vehicle, for a minimum wage.
> 
> 
> It's not a "dream world" they live in. It's an uneducated about the economy world.


The problem is...

Your fantasy happened with uber/lyft in Orlando.

Rates are less than 55c a mile 8c a minute, below cost ultimately.


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> The problem is...
> 
> Your fantasy happened with uber/lyft in Orlando.
> 
> Rates are less than 55c a mile 8c a minute, below cost ultimately.


And yet...Mears (MAJOR transportation company for those who aren't familiar with Orlando -- taxis, shuttles, buses, etc.) drivers are driving *Uber XL* -- for Mears, but ordered through the Uber app, billed through Uber, at Uber rates.


----------



## Lawlet91 (Jun 8, 2017)

JimKE said:


> And yet...Mears (MAJOR transportation company for those who aren't familiar with Orlando -- taxis, shuttles, buses, etc.) drivers are driving *Uber XL* -- for Mears, but ordered through the Uber app, billed through Uber, at Uber rates.


The difference is at least the black car drivers are only taking those in extremely rare cases when they know they won't get their usual fares or an uberblack fare, and in many cases these black car drivers are paying for their rentals with the uberblack fares WITHOUT losing their normal level of luxury fares. The situation your talking about is them mitigating a small bit of otherwise 0 income time


----------



## kdyrpr (Apr 23, 2016)

I


Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Taxis arn't always called anyway.. and they are sometimes more convenient than uber because..
> 
> hey there's a taxi, i need a ride.. HEY TAXI! (literally that thought process)
> 
> ...


I found that to be true while in NYC recently. Cabs were actually easier to get than rideshare. They are everywhere. Took a cab to a destination from Lincoln Center to downtown and UBER to return. Price was only slightly higher for cab. I'm talking 2-3 dollars.


----------



## Cigars (Dec 8, 2016)

KevinH said:


> https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/14/new-york-citys-minimum-wage-law-for-ride
> demand for Juno's services has decreased,
> Lyft, which is also suing New York City regulators, reports that they, too, are seeing a decline in rides booked though their app,


Wow.
Either Uber and Via are getting the customers that were going to Lyft and Juno
OR
Ridesharing has peaked and begun decline in NYC.

After nine years of Ridesharing, it still loses money and its demand has flatlined in this country's largest city.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

I can't imagine how a minimum wage law would work. Is the hour calculated form when you get a ping and accept until you drop the person off. I think rideshare min wage should be structured like tipped restaurant employees are. When I worked at a restaurant we were paid $213 an hour, all of that money went to pay for income tax payroll deductions basically, and you made enough on tips, but if you didn't then they would have to pay you minimum wage, which never happened over the long run of the week or month.


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

Either the lawmakers thought the fares would stay the same and the companies would be less profitable, or they knew the fares would go up dramaticlly and push people back to public transport.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

I think the new laws are a GREAT step. Will they be revised over time? Of course.

Why do I like them? Because U/L hate them. It forces the companies to pay drivers more. Does it have other negative effects? Sure! But if U/L hadn't kept cutting pay rates in the first place, none of this would have ever occurred!!! THEY DID IT TO THEMSELVES!


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Uber and Lyft tried to put me and all other taxis out of business. They probably reduced the world Fleet by about 30% but that's as much as it's going to reduce. The rest of us are stubborn and can live on less profit and will Outlast Uber and Lyft!


----------



## IGotDrive (Oct 8, 2018)

KevinH said:


> https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/14/new-york-citys-minimum-wage-law-for-ride"Costs have increased for riders, demand for Juno's services has decreased, and hourly earnings for Juno's drivers have fallen," reads a memorandum filed by Juno, which warns that these effects "will only get worse" so long as the rules remain in place.
> 
> The decline is particularly concerning, Juno CEO Ronen Ben David wrote in a separate court filing, because the company had been seeing business increase prior to the implementation of the new pay rules. Juno performs about 5 percent of rideshare rides in New York City, compared to about 20 percent for Lyft and 70 percent for Uber.
> 
> Lyft, which is also suing New York City regulators, reports that they, too, are seeing a decline in rides booked though their app, although it has not been as severe as the hit reported by Juno. Lyft estimates that the city's rideshare industry could see a $50 million decline in bookings in 2019.


So why the heck did they increase the rates?? Ummm, let me guess: they're being greedy and don't want to take a cut to pay their drivers livable wages.

These companies are so full of it when they talk about having to increase fares rather than make fewer BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

Juno is not losing because of the new laws - they are losing because of their greed. Of course Lyft, who claims to care about drivers (what a joke and an insult to intelligence), jumped in to complain and fight the regulation right away, too.

They're complaining that they're hurting because they're being forced into ethical practices. Ha! That's almost like a house burglar complaining and seeking sympathy or empathy because newly implemented police patrol and alarm systems are hurting their profits. They knew it was immoral when they got into the business, know it's wrong as they continue their previously highly unregulated IC model and pay structure hoping it stays unregulated, and then complain and fight when their transgressions are called out and corrected instead of consenting and being happy to able to walk away with no other *deserved *punishment or consequences. Feeling entitled to negatively exploit people with no consideration for those people's needs, then having the nerve to publicly complain and fight when it's being put to an end... there is certainly a special place in hell for these people.


----------



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

IGotDrive said:


> So why the heck did they increase the rates?? Ummm, let me guess: they're being greedy and don't want to take a cut to pay their drivers livable wages.
> 
> These companies are so full of it when they talk about having to increase fares rather than make fewer BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
> 
> ...


Well they can't really lower their cut,

They are losing billions a year...

And in case you didn't know..

NYC accounts for a ginormous portion of all vehicles for hire in the country.

NYC taxis accounted for 19,000/ 200,000 taxis PRE UBER (including the green ones that couldn't work Manhattan)

This is 10% of the taxis in the country... give or take.

NYC taxis/uber vehicles also get many more fares per hour/day then compared to most of the US. because you just can't compare NYC to Chuloata Florida. Never here of Chuloata Florida? Well there ain't much there trust me.

So 10% of the taxis in the US getting 2X-3X as many fares than average really means..

20%-30% of the US taxi BUSINESS is in NYC.

I don't have uber's numbers but...

That sure as heck means that potentially up to 1/3 of uber's Domestic revenue comes out of NYC.

BUT WAIT... Rates are higher in NYC, A LOT HIGHER...

In terms of pure revenue...

north of 30% is coming out NYC... not unreasonable by my rough estimation.


----------



## IGotDrive (Oct 8, 2018)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Well they can't really lower their cut,
> 
> They are losing billions a year...


Exactly - they got into the wrong business with the intentions of using a model that is ethically questionable and would eventually be exposed for what it is. I started a business some years ago before I was really prepared, then I later learned there were some permits and requirements I would need to obtain and meet, respectively, and realized it was not feasible for me so I closed the business. I could have still continued the business illegally until I got the funds to get the items necessary to make it legal, but I decided against that because it wasn't worth the risk and hadn't planned to start a criminal enterprise. I sold off the capital, took the loss, and accepted the fault because I know that business is risky. There are always future changes that can impact your business and need to be considered. The rideshare companies knew this risk existed because their business models were designed to profit at the expense of others, so the fact that they feel their contractors should suffer for their risks is absurd. And the fact that they're complaining because they are not being allowed to transfer their losses from those risks to the drivers is ludicrous.



Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> BUT WAIT... Rates are higher in NYC, A LOT HIGHER...


This is an opportunity for them to use this situation as a example to plan how to respond when other cities follow suit, especially _because _New York is a big city and profit stream for them, but in large part because of their hopes to offer an IPO, they aren't willing to take a drop in revenue. At this point, I believe the bigger companies _do _have the mindset to go out of business and cash out through the IPOs - they've been vocal about the IPOs but shady and secretive about their earnings. It likely hurts the rideshare companies doing business in NYC, but I don't care that companies that show me time and time again they don't care about me are hurting or going out of business, as most people shouldn't - just like we can be replaced, so can they.


----------



## IGotDrive (Oct 8, 2018)

badratings said:


> Customers who stopped using TNC due to cost obviously had alternatives available (especially in NYC), and maybe they shouldn't be calling any taxis in the first place.


And there's the cause of your congestion issue right there. Well said @badratings.


----------



## racheljo (Nov 22, 2018)

IGotDrive said:


> And there's the cause of your congestion issue right there. Well said @badratings.


That was the whole point of congestion pricing. To reduce the number of cars on the road and increase the use of the MTA. Now the city needs to either make the MTA more usable or STFU about their drop in riders.


----------

