# U & L AB5 Fight 🤼‍♂️ reveals reliance on Full Time Drivers ⏰



## 2JoshH (Aug 18, 2020)

Uber and Lyft say the battle over AB-5 is about preserving flexibility for part-time gig workers. The reality is their businesses have become dependent on full-time drivers and they can't afford to pay them like employees.
https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-lyft-ab5-fight-reveals-dependence-full-time-drivers-2020-8Uber and Lyft make most of their money from a small group of drivers who work much more like full-time employees, and veteran drivers accuse the companies of using business models that increasingly exploit them, avoiding labor costs that other companies are normally required to pay.


----------



## TakeFive (Jan 17, 2020)

2JoshH said:


> Uber and Lyft say the battle over AB-5 is about preserving flexibility for part-time gig workers. The reality is their businesses have become dependent on full-time drivers and they can't afford to pay them like employees.
> https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-lyft-ab5-fight-reveals-dependence-full-time-drivers-2020-8Uber and Lyft make most of their money from a small group of drivers who work much more like full-time employees, and veteran drivers accuse the companies of using business models that increasingly exploit them, avoiding labor costs that other companies are normally required to pay.


Sounds like propaganda to me. Arguing over statistics is a fools errand since they're so easy to cherry pick. Business Insider although generally credible is clearly left-leaning. That they would argue in favor of AB-5 is no surprise.

Are those drivers who work full time important to their revenue? You bet, just as part-time drivers are also important. What we don't know and can't discern is How Many of the full-drivers would prefer to remain Independent Contractors? Many full time drivers may binge drive on Fri, Sat, and Sunday, for example and may much prefer preserving their flexibility and IC status.


> According to the Seattle study, the 33% of drivers who worked more than 32 hours per week accounted for 55% of trips.


Uber/Lyft contend this study is flawed. That said, somebody driving the weekends could reach 32 hours. My guess is that lots of drivers who want to remain IC's drive between 28 and 36 hours a week (for those weeks that they drive). If 91% of drivers drive less than 40 hours/week then it's obvious that part-timers are very important. To argue otherwise is silly.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

The actual % or anything else is irrelevant.

This is a battle about a *BANKRUPT SOCIALIST STATE* trying to collect more taxes from people who legally were IC's to begin with.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

TakeFive said:


> Arguing over statistics is a fools errand since they're so easy to cherry pick.
> 
> Uber/Lyft contend this study is flawed.
> 
> If 91% of drivers drive less than 40 hours/week then it's obvious that part-timers are very important. To argue otherwise is silly.


Yea, obviously numbers are easy to cherry pick, especially if Uber/Lyft control access to the numbers.

Of course any study is flawed without having correct numbers. Uber and Lyft know that because they won't provide true numbers.

Part time drivers would also include drivers that drive a couple hours a week. Inflating those part time driver numbers.

How many drivers work two hours a week, we don't know. Uber/Lyft won't give up those numbers.

How many drivers are onboarded that drive a couple hours a MONTH?

We don't know.

Why hasn't Uber purged non or minimal active drivers?

Because it inflates the number of "part time drivers".

This is all assumption on my part.

Uber/Lyft could easily prove otherwise by giving out true non cherry picked numbers.


----------



## OC-Moe (Oct 6, 2018)

Über and Lyft are digital snake oil salesmen


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

>>>>>>>>> livable and predictable wages, 

Does the author mean a W2 job? Because one doesn't do RS for a livable and predictable wage, sheesh.


----------



## Mkang14 (Jun 29, 2019)

SHalester said:


> >>>>>>>>> livable and predictable wages,
> 
> Does the author mean a W2 job? Because one doesn't do RS for a livable and predictable wage, sheesh.


They didn't count uber earnings as a part of my income when I was in the process of buying my house.

Wonder if it is a problem for full time workers &#129300;


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Mkang14 said:


> Wonder if it is a problem for full time workers


my guess underwriters would like sideways at all 'gig' earnings as not being reliable. Plus, currently they would 'call' Uber to verify employment; what would Uber say to that? I suspect just 'gig' earnings won't get one a mortgage at any amount.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

TakeFive said:


> Sounds like propaganda to me.


"You've got 3 million drivers across the United States that are receiving unemployment benefits and the companies have never contributed a single dollar into those pools," Coleman said. "Yours and my tax dollars, and frankly our children's tax dollars, are paying for that cost that exists whether Uber and Lyft pay it or not."



ANT 7 said:


> BANKRUPT SOCIALIST STATE


It's a bankrupt incompetent Uber and Lyft corporate scam.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

It's only a scam, if you are a loser in life, and cannot manage your affairs, are lazy and irresponsible.

Financially, driving as an IC works just fine for me.


----------



## TX Uber Ant (Aug 24, 2019)

Mkang14 said:


> They didn't count uber earnings as a part of my income when I was in the process of buying my house.
> 
> Wonder if it is a problem for full time workers &#129300;


A lender will look at the debt to income ratio which is 28 percent of ones monthly income should be where a house payment will need to be in order to qualify for a mortgage. The second part of the qualifying income ratio is total debt which would include the house payment plus anything on ones credit report which cannot be above 50 percent of the income. What is also looked at when you are a business is your profit and loss statement and assets. Assuming an ant was making 20 per hour and the average house costs 250,000 that would require an income of 80,000 in my local market which calculates to 38.50 per hour. It would be impossible to stay busy for 80 hours per week for 52 weeks per year.


----------



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

None of this is really surprise:

did any of you really think it was the part timers who ever picked folks up at 4:00 am?


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

2JoshH said:


> Uber and Lyft say the battle over AB-5 is about preserving flexibility for part-time gig workers. The reality is their businesses have become dependent on full-time drivers and they can't afford to pay them like employees.
> https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-lyft-ab5-fight-reveals-dependence-full-time-drivers-2020-8Uber and Lyft make most of their money from a small group of drivers who work much more like full-time employees, and veteran drivers accuse the companies of using business models that increasingly exploit them, avoiding labor costs that other companies are normally required to pay.


Ever since the disastrous 2014-15 pay cuts that changed rideshare from a middle-class job into a low-paying job, Uber has been lying to the public and the govt about their dependence on full-time drivers. The whole "side-hustle" routine was nothing but a big con-job.

Uber's fear of AB5-style laws is the reason for their lying.

Back in the old days when pay rates were decent, Uber used to promote rideshare as a good-paying full time job. They even got into trouble with the govt for using inflated earnings claims in their ads for full-time drivers.

The bedrock core of the rideshare business has always been the Mon-Fri commutes, which have always been dominated by full-time drivers.

Finally, the truth is coming out.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

OC-Moe said:


> Über and Lyft are digital snake oil salesmen


Virtual Ponzi

" RECRUIT YOUR FRIENDS " !


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> The bedrock core of the rideshare business are the Mon-Fri commutes, which have always been dominated by full-time drivers.


a bedrock of 20% or less of the active drivers¿


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

ANT 7 said:


> It's only a scam, if you are a loser in life, and cannot manage your affairs, are lazy and irresponsible.
> 
> Financially, driving as an IC works just fine for me.


One thing I'll say is I highly doubt you're a paid shill for Uber because the purpose of shills is to put the company and their side of this debate in a good light, and with your nasty comments you make the Uber apologists and their arguments look bad.



SHalester said:


> a bedrock of 20% or less of the active drivers¿


Those 20% are bringing in most of the money, and they're also providing the most important rides as well.


----------



## doyousensehumor (Apr 13, 2015)

Many fulltimers aren't working only one platform.
Or taking every single fare. Or using expensive vehicles. Or quiting if not sustainable

Some who run their business poorly, want equal results, as those who have figured it out.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

doyousensehumor said:


> Many fulltimers aren't working only one platform.
> Or taking every single fare. Or using expensive vehicles. Or quiting if not sustainable
> 
> Some who run their business poorly, want equal results, as those who have figured it out.


I've talked to many full timers over the years and even though most of them signed up for both companies, pretty much every one of them gets the vast bulk of their income from one company or the other, most of the time it's Uber.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> One thing I'll say is I highly doubt you're a paid shill for Uber because the purpose of shills is to put the company and their side of this debate in a good light, and with your nasty comments you make the Uber apologists and their arguments look bad.
> 
> 
> Those 20% are bringing in most of the money, and they're also providing the most important rides as well.


I was always in top 5% of earners in New Orleans.

My ratings suck.

But i made Uber lots of money.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

TakeFive said:


> Sounds like propaganda to me. Arguing over statistics is a fools errand since they're so easy to cherry pick. Business Insider although generally credible is clearly left-leaning. That they would argue in favor of AB-5 is no surprise.
> 
> Are those drivers who work full time important to their revenue? You bet, just as part-time drivers are also important. What we don't know and can't discern is How Many of the full-drivers would prefer to remain Independent Contractors? Many full time drivers may binge drive on Fri, Sat, and Sunday, for example and may much prefer preserving their flexibility and IC status.
> 
> Uber/Lyft contend this study is flawed. That said, somebody driving the weekends could reach 32 hours. My guess is that lots of drivers who want to remain IC's drive between 28 and 36 hours a week (for those weeks that they drive). If 91% of drivers drive less than 40 hours/week then it's obvious that part-timers are very important. To argue otherwise is silly.


Uber's ultimate goal (and a big part of their valuation) is to replace public transit and eventually private car ownership with cartels of SDCs. Travis referred to this goal as "all of the marbles" .

Thus, the bedrock core and most important part of the rideshare business has always been the Mon-Fri commutes, which have always been dominated by full time drivers.

Every ride is important to Uber, but without question rush hours are the MOST IMPORTANT rides.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Thinking about this a little more, the state should be able to figure out roughly how many Uber drivers are part time versus full time.

In California, anyone that hires an independent contractor must report to the state as soon as they pay out 600 bux in a year.

That should all be reflected on state income tax forms. 

The problem is can they get that info from their computer system.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

observer said:


> Thinking about this a little more, the state should be able to figure out roughly how many Uber drivers are part time versus full time.
> 
> In California, anyone that hires an independent contractor must report to the state as soon as they pay out 600 bux in a year.
> 
> ...


I would think that the state of CA has the authority to order Uber to turn over those numbers, and if not, exert enough pressure to make Uber do it.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> I would think that the state of CA has the authority to order Uber to turn over those numbers, and if not, exert enough pressure to make Uber do it.


https://edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/Independent_Contractor_Reporting.htm
The problem is trusting Uber to give accurate numbers. They'd also claim trade secrets.


----------



## May H. (Mar 20, 2018)

ANT 7 said:


> The actual % or anything else is irrelevant.
> 
> This is a battle about a *BANKRUPT SOCIALIST STATE* trying to collect more taxes from people who legally were IC's to begin with.


WRONG! We weren't IC's all along. Legally there's an ABC (3 part) Test used to determine who's an IC vs an employee. AB5 just codified this into law.


----------



## TX Uber Ant (Aug 24, 2019)

May H. said:


> WRONG! We weren't IC's all along. Legally there's an ABC (3 part) Test used to determine who's an IC vs an employee. AB5 just codified this into law.


So after you become employees you get to pay:

Federal Income Taxes
State Income Taxes
Social Security
Healthcare
Unemployment Insurance

That is the definition of socialism and you are going to end up working for minimum wage after all those deductions are carved out of your gross income.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> Those 20% are bringing in most of the money, and they're also providing the most important rides as well.


Yeah, I've seen this opinion from you before. Disagreed then, disagree now. Take 80% of the drivers out, the entire shabang collapses. But, I have to say, the FTings do rock and they do make a great deal of noise and problems (AB5 as an example). But let's get some stats how many of the 20% work consistent 40 hours per weeks....over how many months? I suspect very few keep it up.


----------



## Fusion_LUser (Jan 3, 2020)

TX Uber Ant said:


> So after you become employees you get to pay:
> 
> Federal Income Taxes
> State Income Taxes
> ...


And all that is taken from your minimum wage pay. I highly doubt Uber and especially Lyft are not lying about ants making no more than minimum wage so for most drivers we have to give up $20-$50 hour gigs so those who strive to make .25 a minute before deductions are happy.


----------



## Anonymousdude (Feb 14, 2020)

ANT 7 said:


> The actual % or anything else is irrelevant.
> 
> This is a battle about a *BANKRUPT SOCIALIST STATE* trying to collect more taxes from people who legally were IC's to begin with.


California has the 5th biggest economy in the world, if California were its own country. How can it be broke? In fact it speaks volumes that what California has been doing all along is working if it's economy is that great. It's done amazingly well and has attracted and birth the biggest and most prosperous tech companies in theworld.

don't just regurgitate what you hear on the news, fact find the left and right sources first.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

LOL.......free Kool Aid for you.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

not to mention states can't declare bankruptcy. Just saying.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

But they can have more debt than assets.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

ANT 7 said:


> But they can have more debt than assets.


you mean like the Fed government? Sure, no problem.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

Heh.....exactly.


----------



## TakeFive (Jan 17, 2020)

observer said:


> Thinking about this a little more, the state should be able to figure out roughly how many Uber drivers are part time versus full time.


Just curious; why is this the least bit important?

If most of the full time drivers prefer being IC's (my guess), that would be more interesting and relevant.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

TakeFive said:


> Just curious; why is this the least bit important?
> 
> If most of the full time drivers prefer being IC's (my guess), that would be more interesting and relevant.


Because Uber keeps claiming it's model is for part time drivers.

If prop 22 passes there is a high likelyhood that there will no longer be full time drivers.

Uber will give drivers just enough hours to not meet the minimums required by prop 22.

Uber is laying the ground work for eliminating all full time drivers.


----------



## W00dbutcher (Jan 14, 2019)

ANT 7 said:


> The actual % or anything else is irrelevant.
> 
> This is a battle about a *BANKRUPT SOCIALIST STATE* trying to collect more taxes from people who legally were IC's to begin with.


With all those independent contractors claiming unemployment insurance at the expense of the government. Who's paying their workman's comp? Everybody else that's paying into the workman's comp is paying it not Uber or Lyft. Uber and Lyft should be responsible for that as well. Especially when they are actually giving it to the independent contractors.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

W00dbutcher said:


> With all those independent contractors claiming unemployment insurance at the expense of the government. Who's paying their workman's comp? Everybody else that's paying into the workman's comp is paying it not Uber or Lyft. Uber and Lyft should be responsible for that as well. Especially when they are actually giving it to the independent contractors.


Taxpayers, that's who.

ALL of us subsidize Uber and Lyft wether we want to or not.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

ANT 7 said:


> It's only a scam, if you are a loser in life, and cannot manage your affairs, are lazy and irresponsible.
> 
> Financially, driving as an IC works just fine for me.


Uber and Lyft never posted a cent in profits. They've burned through investors billions for a decade.

Now look at my comment again



jocker12 said:


> It's a bankrupt incompetent Uber and Lyft *corporate scam*.


First. This is about you only to you based on your values, but I am telling you, if you drive for Uber or Lyft, they are taking advantage of you big time. As long as you are only interested in you, and refuse to see the entire picture that includes the corporate scam, those corporations love you because they use your labor and your depreciating assets for their benefit and your deficit.

Please look at the bottom of every comment I make. There is a Malcolm X quote about a naive fish that swallows the worm with a hook in it and ends up in a frying pan. Uber and Lyft are fishing, and some drivers swallowed the worms floating in midwater. Those fish are convinced they are doing just fine.

Second. What socialist state are you talking about?

You do know how the US Army, the Police force, and the Firefighter system are socialist systems, correct?


----------



## TakeFive (Jan 17, 2020)

jocker12 said:


> Second. What socialist state are you talking about?
> 
> You do know how the US Army, the Police force, and the Firefighter system are socialist systems, correct?


The primary thing that makes this country so awesome is its creativity, ingenuity and dynamism as a direct result of a free market-based economy. Yes, there are many government sponsored beneficial organization to even include our public school system but that doesn't take away from our world-leading private sector economy. You want to destroy America? Keep creating a Nanny State in place of what we have.

So far as Uber/Lyft are concerned, apparently one can't repeat too often that nobody is forced to work for them. It's a free country; people have free will; I'd like to keep it free. (And btw I'm not a fan of Trump nor a Republican)


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

TakeFive said:


> The primary thing that makes this country so awesome is its creativity, ingenuity and dynamism as a direct result of a free market-based economy. Yes, there are many government sponsored beneficial organization to even include our public school system but that doesn't take away from our world-leading private sector economy. You want to destroy America? Keep creating a Nanny State in place of what we have.
> 
> So far as Uber/Lyft are concerned, apparently one can't repeat too often that nobody is forced to work for them. It's a free country; people have free will; I'd like to keep it free. (And btw I'm not a fan of Trump nor a Republican)


You believe Uber/Lyft operate a free market based business?


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> You believe Uber/Lyft operate a free market based business?


A free market economy is one where supply and demand regulate production and labor. Each transaction is voluntary among the buyer and seller. Items such as taxes and minimum wages do not exist.

In a socialist or highly regulated market economy the government regulates production and labor. Supply, prices, and labor is limited to what the government believes is necessary.

Which works better? The USSR had bread lines while the USA fed the world in the 1950's to the 1990's. A Soviet bought a car. The dealer said to come back in 10 years to pick it up. The buyer asked, "morning or afternoon." The dealer said, "after 10 years, why does it matter?" The buyer said, "well, the plumber is coming in the morning."

In order to maximize profits, Uber/Lyft will pay drivers as little as necessary yet still provide a sufficient number of drivers for the demand of riders. Likewise, Uber/Lyft will charge riders as much as possible yet still have a sufficient number of riders for the supply of drivers. This is supply/demand in action. This is what maximizes production and profitability.

Uber/Lyft operate in as free a market as is available in the USA (other than a black market).


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> A free market economy is one where supply and demand regulate production and labor. Each transaction is voluntary among the buyer and seller. Items such as taxes and minimum wages do not exist.
> 
> In a socialist or highly regulated market economy the government regulates production and labor. Supply, prices, and labor is limited to what the government believes is necessary.
> 
> ...


A free market would be if drivers were unregulated, able to set their own hours, able to build their own customer base, able to set their own prices and able to grow their own business.

That is a true free market.

Uber and Lyft are far from a free market.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> A free market would be if drivers were unregulated, able to set their own hours, able to build their own customer base, able to set their own prices and able to grow their own business.
> 
> That is a true free market.


I agree 100% with the above. So who or what is limiting driver's ability to charge who or what they please? Hint: it is illegal for most people to solicit rides for profit in most areas of the country. Another hint: Uber/Lyft do not have the ability to create laws or regulations. They can only set company policy.

Another question, who or what limits competition? Why just Uber and Lyft? Why not hundreds or thousands of rideshare companies? The additional competition would spur innovation, create better pricing, increase production, etc. In Nevada, a new rideshare company must buy a license at $1 million and pay a fee for each car in the system. Who is going to compete with Uber/Lyft with such a huge barrier to enter the market? Did Uber/Lyft create this barrier? No, only laws passed by lawmakers can do this.



observer said:


> Uber and Lyft are far from a free market.


But not due to their fault. As you state, its the regulations that prevent a free(r) market. End the regulations is my answer. What's yours? More regulations? Uber and Lyft are using supply/demand to maximize their profits within the limits set by lawmakers. The purpose of a business is to create profits.

I've set my price to drive a rider at $5 an hour. Unfortunately, I'll be arrested and my car impounded if I accept such a ride from a stranger. Who will arrest me? Uber? Who will impound my car? Lyft?


----------



## Ubereater (Dec 25, 2015)

In free market it's mum and pops businesses should undercut the big PUBLIC corporations on prices, not the other way around.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Ubereater said:


> In free market it's mum and pops businesses should undercut the big PUBLIC corporations on prices, not the other way around.


That might be easy in some markets but try competing with United Airlines on intercontinental flights. Economies of scale make large businesses more efficient in some markets.

On the other hand, mum bakes some tasty cakes. She can produce them fairly cheaply. But various agencies, licensing, fees, regulations, etc., prevent her from competing with the big boys.

Let the consumer vote with their pocketbook to produce the winners and losers. Rules are set by the lawmakers. Rules come with unintended consequences. Rules can be made to prevent competition with those already in business. The principle of supply/demand should be the primary rule. Stop the rule makers from choosing the winners and losers.

A free market will always produce a stronger economy than a controlled market, given fair competition.


----------



## Ubereater (Dec 25, 2015)

bsliv said:


> That might be easy in some markets but try competing with United Airlines on intercontinental flights. Economies of scale make large businesses more efficient in some markets.
> 
> On the other hand, mum bakes some tasty cakes. She can produce them fairly cheaply. But various agencies, licensing, fees, regulations, etc., prevent her from competing with the big boys.
> 
> ...


If UBER was a private company, they would probably filled out bankruptcy already trying to complete with the mums and pops businesses all over the globe.
That's why I highlighted the word PUBLIC.
That's is Socialism, comrade.
Now it's time to pay their workers guaranteed minimum plus the "hero of social labor" badges for doing overtime, like they did in the good ol'USSSR.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> I agree 100% with the above. So who or what is limiting driver's ability to charge who or what they please? Hint: it is illegal for most people to solicit rides for profit in most areas of the country. Another hint: Uber/Lyft do not have the ability to create laws or regulations. They can only set company policy.
> 
> Another question, who or what limits competition? Why just Uber and Lyft? Why not hundreds or thousands of rideshare companies? The additional competition would spur innovation, create better pricing, increase production, etc. In Nevada, a new rideshare company must buy a license at $1 million and pay a fee for each car in the system. Who is going to compete with Uber/Lyft with such a huge barrier to enter the market? Did Uber/Lyft create this barrier? No, only laws passed by lawmakers can do this.
> 
> ...


"Uber/Lyft do not have the ability to create laws or regulations."

Prop 22 would like a word with you as would Texas state TNC regulations and regulations in all other states. You don't think Uber had a hand in setting up that million dollar license in Nevada?

Uber doesn't want a free market, they want a regulated market. One that regulates all other competitors out.



bsliv said:


> That might be easy in some markets but try competing with United Airlines on intercontinental flights. Economies of scale make large businesses more efficient in some markets.
> 
> On the other hand, mum bakes some tasty cakes. She can produce them fairly cheaply. But various agencies, licensing, fees, regulations, etc., prevent her from competing with the big boys.
> 
> ...


There are no economies of scale about Uber except for marketing.

Vehicles transporting people have been around since before the automobile.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> Prop 22 would like a word with you as would Texas state TNC regulations and regulations in all other states. You don't think Uber had a hand in setting up that million dollar license in Nevada?


Prop 22 will be voted on by the citizens. It will be signed into law by the governor. You're blaming the wrong group of people for the regulations.

I'd bet good money that Uber influenced the Nevada legislature. Uber was doing what was good for Uber. The legislature was supposed to do good for its citizens. I blame the Nevada legislature, they failed their citizens. Lobbying is legal. Accepting favors in exchange for a vote should not be legal.

For example, Microsoft may want to be the only operating system on pc's in the world. Good for them. But when a government requires a citizen to use Windows if they want to do business with the state, we should consider new legislators. Don't blame Microsoft.



observer said:


> Uber doesn't want a free market, they want a regulated market. One that regulates all other competitors out.


A startup business wants no regulation. But as that business grows to become the dominant force in their market, they change. They want regulation to restrict competition. It happens all the time. Usually, government won't get involved. The large companies have to resort to buying up the smaller companies.



observer said:


> There are no economies of scale about Uber except for marketing.


The way competition is currently restricted, the use of their app is a form of an economy of scale. We need thousands of rideshare companies. They could be organized under third party apps similar to the way hotel prices are organized under trivago, kayak, orbit, priceline, etc. But because Uber is so large, riders use their app and their app only.

Imagine if anti competitive legislation didn't exist. One rideshare company could specialize in classic Ferraris, another in limos, another in junkers, etc. The third party app would inform the riders of fees, driver qualifications, availability of cars, etc. Uber would hate that.

No question about it, Uber is in business to make money for Uber. They are not in business to benefit drivers. They are not in business to benefit riders. But even without rampant competition, Uber must adhere to the principle of supply and demand. They can't charge riders $20 per mile and expect riders to comply. They can't pay a driver $0.01 per mile and expect drivers to cooperate. But since its their business, Uber should be the one to decide what to charge and what to pay. If one doesn't like Uber's fares or fees, don't use their service.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Prop 22 will be voted on by the citizens. It will be signed into law by the governor. You're blaming the wrong group of people for the regulations.
> 
> I'd bet good money that Uber influenced the Nevada legislature. Uber was doing what was good for Uber. The legislature was supposed to do good for its citizens. I blame the Nevada legislature, they failed their citizens. Lobbying is legal. Accepting favors in exchange for a vote should not be legal.
> 
> ...


This ^^^^^^

Is night and day compared to your quote,

"Uber/Lyft do not have the ability to create laws or regulations."


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> "Uber/Lyft do not have the ability to create laws or regulations."


They have zero ability to create laws and regulations. Uber can't even vote in an election. The only power they have is in trying to influence our elected officials. Everyone and every group has the same type of power. BLM, NRA, MADD, Exxon, all do lobbying, some in more effective ways than others.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Semantics.

Lobbying is creating laws.

https://www.fr24news.com/a/2020/08/...ing-efforts-in-california-and-nationwide.html
https://www.crainsnewyork.com/politics/uber-tops-list-big-spending-state-lobbyists
https://www.theregreview.org/2018/06/28/schriever-uber-lyft-lobby-deregulation-preemption/


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> Semantics.
> 
> Lobbying is creating laws.
> 
> ...


If a kid throws a fit until the parent takes the kid to Disneyland, did the kid cause the trip or did the parent? Is it just semantics? 
The correct answer is the parent caused the trip. The kid has no power to get there by themselves, they can only influence the parent. A good parent will consider other influences, like cost, injury, inconvenience, etc., not just the kid's feelings at the moment.

Does the NRA make laws? How about BLM? Antifa? National Association of Realtors? No. They all attempt to influence lawmakers. There is a clear cut difference between influence and passing a law.

Let Uber throw a tantrum. Pay attention to the lawmakers.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

I never said lobbying was illegal or wrong

Again, you wrote,

"Uber/Lyft do not have the ability to create laws or regulations."

Who do you think came up with the proposal for TNC laws?

Citizens? Lawmakers? Taxi drivers? Milk men?

Or Uber?


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

TakeFive said:


> government sponsored beneficial organization


Government-sponsored? Hahahaha... And where is the government getting that money from in order to sponsor those beneficial organizations? From taxes?



TakeFive said:


> our world-leading private sector economy


That doesn't include you. Corporations got so big because they were able to shape laws in their favor due to lobbying and corrupting all political players, and due to continuous worker abuse. Do you think that those corporations are democracies?



TakeFive said:


> Keep creating a Nanny State in place of what we have.


The money to recreate an American middle class is in the corporations' bank accounts, corporations that had and have only one goal, make profits by extracting wealth from communities, and not by injecting it.

Yes, those parasitic corporations (especially Uber and Lyft) need heavy regulations because they are eliminating (another one of their main goals) any competition, including the public sector. Their business model is subverting city policies put in place to protect the most vulnerable members of our community and weakening our social safety net. 



TakeFive said:


> nobody is forced to work for them. It's a free country; people have free will; I'd like to keep it free.


Uber and Lyft drivers ended up making less money not because of the democrats or the republicans, but because of Uber and Lyft continuously slashing driver rates while doing everything to increase the corporate share on their partners' expenses, hiding information away from the public or misleading the media into thinking and informing the public, that the drivers are happy and well.

In Ca, the entire gig economy (a lot of companies that were treating their partners well) got affected by AB5 only because of these 2 corporations - Uber and Lyft, the same corporations that now, say they fight for their partners/drivers "flexibility" rights.

Of course Uber and Lyft would like to keep everything at the driver individual level and frustrate the individuals about their lack of flexibility, but when you look at the entire picture and try to understand the context, you'll see how these parasitic corporations actually take advantage of their customers (by creating unrealistic expectancies) and their partners (by using their time, health and assets), alienating and complicating a relatively short interaction that needs to stay simple and lucrative for all parties involved.

By refusing to understand and accept that happy (not rich) drivers are the key element to their business, Uber and Lyft are digging their own graves.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> I never said lobbying was illegal or wrong
> 
> Again, you wrote,
> 
> ...


Which Uber official signed AB5 into law?

How many seats in the assembly are in the name of Uber? None. A business cannot hold an elective seat.

Who makes the rules in this country? Its not businesses, its legislatures.

Uber takes advantage of the rules to maximize their position. I try to do the same thing.

If I'm running a transportation company and have an over supply of drivers, I'll lower their pay until I no longer have an over supply. If I have a shortage of drivers, I'll raise their pay until I have a sufficient number of drivers. This is how open markets work. Messing with this formula for supply and demand will result in adverse conditions.



jocker12 said:


> Corporations got so big because they were able to shape laws in their favor due to lobbying and corrupting all political players,


Not necessarily. For instance, Walmart got big because it offered products at a discount. Shoppers at Walmart saw the value. They built a better mousetrap.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Which Uber official signed AB5 into law?
> 
> How many seats in the assembly are in the name of Uber? None. A business cannot hold an elective seat.
> 
> ...


Again, you wrote,

"Uber/Lyft do not have the ability to create laws or regulations."

Ubers lobbying and money _do _have the ability to create laws and regulation.

If they didn't, they wouldn't be spending millions and millions of dollars on lobbyists.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

bsliv said:


> Not necessarily. For instance, Walmart got big because it offered products at a discount. Shoppers at Walmart saw the value. They built a better mousetrap.


I think you really want to hurt this "corporate is good promoting discounted products" ridiculous myth.

Let's see... broke employees, child labor, prison labor, discrimination... how do you think they got away with this for so long? Because they are innocent, and promote discounted products?

https://www.grunge.com/26656/shady-secrets-wal-mart-doesnt-want-know/


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> Ubers lobbying and money _do _have the ability to create laws and regulation.


The have the ability to influence the creation of laws and regulations.
They cannot create laws and regulations.
There is a difference and its not just semantics. Words and sentences have meanings.

Every human and business has the ability to influence the creation of laws and regulations.
Only legislators can create laws and regulations.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

TakeFive said:


> So far as Uber/Lyft are concerned, apparently one can't repeat too often that nobody is forced to work for them. It's a free country; people have free will; I'd like to keep it free. (And btw I'm not a fan of Trump nor a Republican)


It's repeated way too often by Uber apologists. It's a tired cliche that means nothing.

Not one freaking worker in this country is forced to work for their employer, and despite that freedom, laws were established to protect those very workers from being exploited. The fact that someone is free to quit their job doesn't mean they can't be exploited.

Not one single sweatshop worker was forced to stay at their jobs, and despite that fact they eventually rose up, demanded, and eventually got major improvements in pay, safety, and benefits.

Not one striking worker has ever been forced to stay at their jobs, but they chose to fight for better pay and conditions rather than cut and run.



bsliv said:


> I agree 100% with the above. So who or what is limiting driver's ability to charge who or what they please? Hint: it is illegal for most people to solicit rides for profit in most areas of the country. Another hint: Uber/Lyft do not have the ability to create laws or regulations. They can only set company policy.
> 
> Another question, who or what limits competition? Why just Uber and Lyft? Why not hundreds or thousands of rideshare companies? The additional competition would spur innovation, create better pricing, increase production, etc. In Nevada, a new rideshare company must buy a license at $1 million and pay a fee for each car in the system. Who is going to compete with Uber/Lyft with such a huge barrier to enter the market? Did Uber/Lyft create this barrier? No, only laws passed by lawmakers can do this.
> 
> ...


Your cop outs don't wash. Uber is a rent-seeker, period. They virtually wrote the laws that created major barriers to entry for competitors, which proves their beloved founder, Mr. I Love Free Markets himself, Travis Kalanick is a liar and a hypocrite and the company itself is unethical and corrupt.

The fact that corrupt and/or incompetent politicians went along with it doesn't let Uber off the hook. They're slimebags who deserve to go out of business. If you choose to defend Uber that's on you.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks (Aug 5, 2019)

Anonymousdude said:


> California has the 5th biggest economy in the world, if California were its own country. How can it be broke? In fact it speaks volumes that what California has been doing all along is working if it's economy is that great. It's done amazingly well and has attracted and birth the biggest and most prosperous tech companies in theworld.
> 
> don't just regurgitate what you hear on the news, fact find the left and right sources first.


The State of California just in Land assets owned by the state has a higher net worth than half of America.

*Wealthiest states*
Californians' net worth totals over $6 trillion or about $160,000 per resident. The state holds 17% of national net worth, while making up only 12% of the U.S. population.

The net worth of about $160,000 would put California at No. 23 on the list of the countries according to worldsrichestcountries.com. California would be just behind Hong Kong ($173,685) and ahead of the following nations:


Qatar: $156,986
Israel: $155,982
Finland: $149,917
UAE: $144,377
Kuwait: $113,419


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> The have the ability to influence the creation of laws and regulations.
> They cannot create laws and regulations.
> There is a difference and its not just semantics. Words and sentences have meanings.
> 
> ...


"The have the ability to influence the creation of laws and regulations."

Exactly.

Influence is creating. Laws and regulations don't create themselves.

Semantics.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> Yeah, I've seen this opinion from you before. Disagreed then, disagree now.


It's not my opinion that full timers do a disproportionate number of rides, it's fact. And now data is starting to emerge that they're doing MOST of the rides. You can disagree with facts all you want and you'll be wrong every time.



SHalester said:


> Take 80% of the drivers out, the entire shabang collapses.


Maybe or maybe not, but so what? The article is about Uber's reliance on full timers.



SHalester said:


> have to say, the FTings do rock and they do make a great deal of noise and problems (AB5 as an example). But let's get some stats how many of the 20% work consistent 40 hours per weeks....over how many months? I suspect very few keep it up.


Of course they're making most of the noise because they have the most at stake here. They're trying to support themselves and their families with this job. I don't have the stats but I'll go out on a limb and say most are consistent. I've talked to many FT drivers over the years and every one of them do it consistently.

Uber has a 97% yearly turnover rate, so most FT drivers don't last more than a few months. They discover they can't net higher than poverty-level wages even when they work 60-90 hours per week and quit.

Fortunately for Uber, there's always been more than 1 new driver signing up to take the other driver's place.


----------



## I will crack Lyft hacks (Aug 5, 2019)

TakeFive said:


> You want to destroy America? Keep creating a Nanny State in place of what we have.


Do you consider Germany a nanny State?
How about Japan?

How do you compare German Or Japanese Manufacturing to our model?

We can defund the army, roads, bridges, and police Today and have no more socialist taxes, as you call it.

Would you prefer that?

IE If a country has a army funded through taxes, Does that make it Socialist!

Nobody here actually wants to destroy the Country we live in by the way.
&#127473;&#127479;


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> t's not my opinion that full timers do a disproportionate number of rides, it's fact.


so, less than 20% provide more rides than the 80%. Show me.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> so, less than 20% provide more rides than the 80%. Show me.


Full timers provide 55% of the rides in Seattle. Full timers provide most of the rides in NYC. There are probably many other markets but I haven't seen the stats.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> Influence is creating.


Influence is not creating. If necessary, I'll provide definitions of each word but I think you should already have that knowledge.



observer said:


> Laws and regulations don't create themselves.


Correct. Elected law makers create laws. Private businesses abide by those laws, they are not the creators.

Again, every person can influence law makers. I want every person to be forced by law to have an AR-15. I can exert influence law makers. Will they listen to me? Can I create that law?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> Full timers provide 55% of the rides in Seattle. Full timers provide most of the rides in NYC. There are probably many other markets but I haven't seen the stats.


so, you don't have stats to really prove your facts, aye? That makes them, by default, opinions.

And, really, you don't consider 5% disproportionate, or do you?

The very logistics of 20% providing a much higher ratio than 80% is quite math challenging. And those 20%, they do not work 160 hours month in and out. Much much less than 20% achieve that.

It's ok to have opinions.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Influence is not creating. If necessary, I'll provide definitions of each word but I think you should already have that knowledge.
> 
> Correct. Elected law makers create laws. Private businesses abide by those laws, they are not the creators.
> 
> Again, every person can influence law makers. I want every person to be forced by law to have an AR-15. I can exert influence law makers. Will they listen to me? Can I create that law?


So, the laws just poof out out of thin air?

A law maker one day decides, "Today, I am going to create a law that regulates TNCs although it is not needed and no one asked me (especially not Uber)?.

Semantics.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> So, the laws just poof out out of thin air?
> 
> A law maker one day decides, "Today, I am going to create a law that regulates TNCs although it is not needed and no one asked me (especially not Uber)?.
> 
> Semantics.


Just because a constituent has an idea for a law does not mean it becomes a law. I want stop lights at every intersection. Will it become a law? No poof?

There is usually a committee or two and a couple of houses of elected officals that vote on a bill. At no time will a private company vote for passing or denying a bill. Do we need a civics lesson in addition to definitions?

What you call semantics is a clear cut difference. Uber will never run for office. Uber will never cast a vote.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Just because a constituent has an idea for a law does not mean it becomes a law. I want stop lights at every intersection. Will it become a law? No poof?
> 
> There is usually a committee or two and a couple of houses of elected officals that vote on a bill. At no time will a private company vote for passing or denying a bill. Do we need a civics lesson in addition to definitions?
> 
> What you call semantics is a clear cut difference. Uber will never run for office. Uber will never cast a vote.


Again,

"Uber/Lyft do not have the ability to create laws or regulations."

Semantics, just the act of paying lobbyists to help a legislator create a law is creating a law.

Without Ubers money, laws may have been created anyway, but they would almost certainly not been favorable to Uber.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> just the act of paying lobbyists to help a legislator create a law is creating a law.


Wrong. The lobbyist must find a willing politician. The politician must be able to get the bill thru a committee or two. Then it must be voted on my a lower house. The an upper house must pass the bill. Then the bill must be signed by the executive office. Then the constitutionality of the law may be challenged.

Buying politicians is not as easy as one may think. There may be two or more lobbyists with conflicting interests. A politician may have morals. A politician may be seeking reelection. Spending money on a lobbyist is no guarantee for a law to be pass. Far from it.

If buying laws were as easy as you imply, there would be no public debate on gun control, abortion, gay rights, etc. It would all be solved by the richest lobbyist.

What law in your state did Uber pass? Be specific. AB what? Codified as CRS what?


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

bsliv said:


> Wrong. The lobbyist must find a willing politician. The politician must be able to get the bill thru a committee or two. Then it must be voted on my a lower house. The an upper house must pass the bill. Then the bill must be signed by the executive office. Then the constitutionality of the law may be challenged.
> 
> Buying politicians is not as easy as one may think. There may be two or more lobbyists with conflicting interests. A politician may have morals. A politician may be seeking reelection. Spending money on a lobbyist is no guarantee for a law to be pass. Far from it.
> 
> ...


You should look at the real problem - "People are encouraged to take their anger and frustrations out on the government. But the real propagators of tyranny - who have 'demolished civil society', who have purposely marginalized people, creating the fabricated 'wants' that people spend most of their lives pursuing - are the powerful private corporations which back government. Whilst our media is filled with stories and scandals about government, these powerful, privately owned corporations remain hidden, out of sight, unnamed, untouchable. This is a genuine achievement of corporate propaganda. - Noam Chomsky

And

"The first thing you've got to do in any kind of change is to *recognize the forms of oppression* that exist. If slaves don't recognize that slavery is oppression, it doesn't make much sense to ask them why they don't live in a free society. They think they do." - Noam Chomsky Class Warfare pg 204

And

"The other part of the story is the development of corporations, which is an interesting story in itself. Adam Smith didn't say much about them, but he did criticize the early stages of them. Jefferson lived long enough to see the beginnings, and he was very strongly opposed to them. But the development of corporations really took place in the early twentieth century and very late in the nineteenth century. Originally corporations existed as a public service. *People would get together to build a bridge and they would be incorporated for that purpose by the state*. They built the bridge and that's it. They were supposed to have a public interest function. Well into the 1870s, states were removing corporate charters. They were granted by the state. They didn't have any other authority. They were fictions. They were removing corporate charters because they weren't serving a public function. But then you get into the period of trusts and various efforts to consolidate power that were beginning to be made in the late nineteenth century. It's interesting to look at the literature. The courts didn't really accept it. There were some hints about it. It wasn't until the early twentieth century that courts and lawyers designed a new socioeconomic system. It was never done by legislation. It was done mostly by courts and lawyers and the power they could exercise over individual states. *New Jersey was the first state that granted corporations any right they wanted. *Of course, all the capital in the country suddenly started to flow to New Jersey, for obvious reasons. Then the other states had to do the same thing just to defend themselves or be wiped out. It's kind of a small-scale globalization. Then the courts and the corporate lawyers came along and created a whole new body of doctrine which gave corporations authority and power that they had never had before. If you look at the background of it, it's the same background that led to fascism and Bolshevism. A lot of it was supported by people called progressives, for these reasons: They said, individual rights are gone. We are in a period of corporatization of power, consolidation of power, centralization. That's supposed to be good if you're a progressive, like a Marxist-Leninist. Out of that same background came three major things: fascism, Bolshevism, and corporate tyranny. They all grew out of the same more or less Hegelian roots. It's fairly recent. We think of corporations as immutable, but they were designed. It's a conscious design which worked as Adam Smith said: the principal architects of policy consolidate state power and use it for their interests. It was certainly not popular will. It's basically court decisions and lawyers' decisions, which created a form of private tyranny which is now more massive in many ways than even state tyranny was. These are major parts of modern twentieth-century history. The classical liberals would be horrified. They didn't even imagine this. But the smaller things that they saw, they were already horrified about. This would have totally scandalized Adam Smith or Jefferson or anyone like that." - Noam Chomsky Class Warfare pg 35 and 36


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

jocker12 said:


> Chomsky


LOL. You've shown your colors. A market economy will always outproduce a command economy. A voluntary transaction between two willing participants produces two winners. A central authority telling me what I can buy, when I can buy it, and how much it will cost me produces losers.

Successful businesses should not be vilified, they should be celebrated and emulated. _Me, 2020_

Corporations took this country from third world status to the number one economic force this world has ever seen. Not only did this system create some extremely rich individuals, it lifted the whole country out of serfdom.

Class warfare in the USA? We don't have classes. One family that is destitute this generation may well grow to be billionaires in the next generation.

Rockefeller got kerosene to the masses thereby ending the use of whale oil. Ford made it affordable for most to own a car. Sam Walton provided products that almost anyone could afford. Bill Gates gave us easy to use software. Were any of these people saints? Far from it. But there type made this country economically strong. People don't start businesses to please anyone other than themselves. To expect otherwise is a delusion. People prosper in business by offer products or services that are valued by the consumer. Your Chompsky quotes imply we don't need computers, pencil and paper will suffice. Horse and buggy instead of automobiles. Whale oil (if any whales can survive) instead of Standard Oil.

Wall St allowed people with good ideas and no funding to become extremely successful.

The USSR had the largest command economy. It paled in comparison to our market economy. China learned what works. Hong Kong is currently rated as the freest economy in the world. They lack personal and political freedom but we're talking economics.

Do I feel oppressed? Yes, but not due to my voluntary actions or the voluntary actions of anyone else. I feel oppressed by what I'm forced to do under the threat of losing my freedom (government puts me in jail).


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

SHalester said:


> my guess underwriters would like sideways at all 'gig' earnings as not being reliable. Plus, currently they would 'call' Uber to verify employment; what would Uber say to that? I suspect just 'gig' earnings won't get one a mortgage at any amount.


Self employed people have always had a difficult time qualifying for a mortgage.especially the guys (like us) that show little or no taxable income. Uber drivers are no different. The issue isnt that uber income dosent qualify, The issue is can you "prove" it. And there are more ways than a tax return to prove income.

Ive gotten owner financed loans, builder financed loans and loans based on bank deposits; Equity loans, Lier loans, Hard money loans and loans based on rental income. Ive purchased homes with credit cards. Ive borrowed from guys that "loan to own" And Im currently selling a home that I will finance for the buyer

Not a mortgage loan, but recently I got a PPP loan based on bank deposits

Bottom line, is, if you have a decent cash flow, and you can prove it, there is always money available


----------



## luckytown (Feb 11, 2016)

ANT 7 said:


> It's only a scam, if you are a loser in life, and cannot manage your affairs, are lazy and irresponsible.
> 
> Financially, driving as an IC works just fine for me.


I dont understand what the problem is....there are laws....so choose one employee or IC.....not a hybrid that allows UBER/Lyft to get away with whatever they can......


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

oldfart said:


> there is always money available


sure, at a steep steep interest rate.


----------



## Uberh21 (Aug 10, 2020)

ANT 7 said:


> It's only a scam, if you are a loser in life, and cannot manage your affairs, are lazy and irresponsible.
> 
> Financially, driving as an IC works just fine for me.


True that!


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Wrong. The lobbyist must find a willing politician. The politician must be able to get the bill thru a committee or two. Then it must be voted on my a lower house. The an upper house must pass the bill. Then the bill must be signed by the executive office. Then the constitutionality of the law may be challenged.
> 
> Buying politicians is not as easy as one may think. There may be two or more lobbyists with conflicting interests. A politician may have morals. A politician may be seeking reelection. Spending money on a lobbyist is no guarantee for a law to be pass. Far from it.
> 
> ...


Why do you want to limit it to California?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cl...r-and-lyft-to-help-pay-for-rta?media=AMP+HTML
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.te...ators-lobbyists-rewrite-rule-gig-economy/amp/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...usiness/economy/gig-economy-lobbying.amp.html
"Uber/Lyft do not have the ability to create laws or regulations."

Your words. ^^^^

I'll be back a little later.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> Why do you want to limit it to California?


I figured you'd know that state the best.



observer said:


> "Uber/Lyft do not have the ability to create laws or regulations."
> 
> Your words. ^^^^


And they stand.

We can argue semantics between inspired and influenced. However, the difference between inspired or influenced and created are clear.

A lobbyist in Montana may write a proposal that states, "No gun control throughout the state." An assemblyman may introduce a bill that states, "No gun control throughout the state." Its the assemblyman that sponsors the bill, not the lobbyist. The bill may pass the committees. The bill may pass the general assembly. The bill may pass the senate. The bill may be signed by the governor. At no point does the lobbyist cast a single vote. The Montana politicians were receptive to the proposal.

Now, say the National Rifle Association spent millions of dollars to promote the same proposal in California. How far would it get? Not very far because the California politicians were not receptive to the proposal. Should the NRA be able to buy that law in any state? The NRA is very rich.

Anyone, any group, or any business can try to promote an idea. Unless there are willing politicians, it won't get far.

Its not a tough concept.


----------



## somedriverguy (Sep 6, 2016)

2JoshH said:


> Uber and Lyft say the battle over AB-5 is about preserving flexibility for part-time gig workers. The reality is their businesses have become dependent on full-time drivers and they can't afford to pay them like employees.
> https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-lyft-ab5-fight-reveals-dependence-full-time-drivers-2020-8Uber and Lyft make most of their money from a small group of drivers who work much more like full-time employees, and veteran drivers accuse the companies of using business models that increasingly exploit them, avoiding labor costs that other companies are normally required to pay.


This morning, the sun rose in the east.



TakeFive said:


> Sounds like propaganda to me. Arguing over statistics is a fools errand since they're so easy to cherry pick. Business Insider although generally credible is clearly left-leaning. That they would argue in favor of AB-5 is no surprise.
> 
> Are those drivers who work full time important to their revenue? You bet, just as part-time drivers are also important. What we don't know and can't discern is How Many of the full-drivers would prefer to remain Independent Contractors? Many full time drivers may binge drive on Fri, Sat, and Sunday, for example and may much prefer preserving their flexibility and IC status.
> 
> Uber/Lyft contend this study is flawed. That said, somebody driving the weekends could reach 32 hours. My guess is that lots of drivers who want to remain IC's drive between 28 and 36 hours a week (for those weeks that they drive). If 91% of drivers drive less than 40 hours/week then it's obvious that part-timers are very important. To argue otherwise is silly.


If 91% of drivers are fulfilling less than 45% of the trips then your argument is absurd.



ANT 7 said:


> The actual % or anything else is irrelevant.
> 
> This is a battle about a *BANKRUPT SOCIALIST STATE* trying to collect more taxes from people who legally were IC's to begin with.


Legally IC's that were being mistreated by being held to an employee standard and not being given the controls that they were due.


----------



## ThrowInTheTowel (Apr 10, 2018)

Nats121 said:


> Ever since the disastrous 2014-15 pay cuts that changed rideshare from a middle-class job into a low-paying job, Uber has been lying to the public and the govt about their dependence on full-time drivers. The whole "side-hustle" routine was nothing but a big con-job.
> 
> Uber's fear of AB5-style laws is the reason for their lying.
> 
> ...


I remember my initial promo was drive 40 hours per week and make a minimum of $1,000 per week for the first 4 weeks. That was to get you hooked as a full time driver and it worked. No mention at all about a part time side gig or get your hustle on nonsense.



luckytown said:


> I dont understand what the problem is....there are laws....so choose one employee or IC.....not a hybrid that allows UBER/Lyft to get away with whatever they can......


There are a select group of drivers that can never see themselves doing anything else ever again but driving Uber/Lyft. In their eyes they have reached the peak of success by being their own boss. Many of them have been fired dozens of times and are unemployable. The Uber/Lyft life is all they know.

Gone are the days of punching a clock and being told what to do. The thought of typing up a resume makes them cringe. They will defend Uber/Lyft until the very last day even @ .10 per mile because they know how to work it and still be profitable. In their eyes you can't put a price on flexibility. Please do not be mislead by said people. The truth will set us free.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

bsliv said:


> LOL. You've shown your colors.


This is not about colors, symbols or slogans. Is about correct information versus corporate propaganda.


bsliv said:


> A voluntary transaction between two willing participants produces two winners.


In theory. Reality is very different.


bsliv said:


> A central authority telling me what I can buy


This is not about you. Corporations want to frustrate you into thinking it actually is about you. But is not, It is about corporate continue abuse.


bsliv said:


> Successful businesses should not be vilified, they should be celebrated and emulated. _Me, 2020_


Depending on what do you mean by "succesful". Making huge profits (only metric) is succesful. Making huge profits but paying employees and/or partners crap (a few more metrics) is a failure. People that are part of a succesful organization win together and/or lose together. Paying crap makes "succesful"corporations parasitic predatory entities.


bsliv said:


> Corporations took this country from third world status to the number one economic force this world has ever seen.


Every empire in history established economic dominance by controlling more and more resources. The US was not invading Central America, or interfering in South America, or bombing Asia and the Middle East because those countries were threats to the US. Nicaragua, Haiti, Laos, Cuba, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Chile, Irak, Panama, Bosnia, and Sudan (to mention just a few) never attacked the US. The DoD sent American troops to fight and some die because of economic interest. You could check the official Number of US casualties (deaths and wounded) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

Pepsi pushed the U.S. government to overthrow the Chilean democratically elected president - see A Marxist threat to cola sales? Pepsi demands a US coup. Goodbye Allende. Hello Pinochet
The Petrodollar standard made the US invade Kuwait and, afterwards, eliminate Sadam. Do you think the US is in the middle east to spread and protect democracy? Do you think that we keep the Saudis close friends because we like them so much? No. It is about making sure they continue to sell that oil they have only for dollars (which artificially keeps out currency stronger globally) and not for other currencies. Please check this article from 2003 - Iraq nets handsome profit by dumping dollar for euro - and understand that our US economy is great not because of the corporations, but because of the US troops that are sent and put in the harms way (because we are invading other countries in the process), to teach locals a lesson. Because of what this article says, Sadam got invaded and eliminated. Or you think the WMDs were real, right?

Panama was invaded for the economic importance of the Panama Canal.

Today, Iran is under pressure because of the same Petrodollar standard.

North Korea is sitting on estimated $7 to $10 trillion rare earth metals, and suddenly is a nuclear threat (while it doesn't have any pollution because it has no industry).

Bolivia is sitting on "estimated at 50% to 70% of the entire world's supply of lithium" and stupid Elon Musk wants it the American style.

Venezuela has the largest oil reserves on the planet "totaling 300 billion barrels" and they are also a threat to democracy.

American corporations are supporting politicians even before they get elected, sponsor them, put them in office, and use them to obtain what they want.

Also by vastly controlling the banking system around the world, the US (and the corporate America) has the possibility to dictate, channel and shape its position. When you say that innovation, ingenuity and the free market put the US where it is today, is extremely simplistic and naive, elementary school level image of the otherwise very complex world we live in.
Have you ever heard about slavery and capitalism? Please, take a look.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...html?mtrref=www.google.com&assetType=REGIWALL


bsliv said:


> Class warfare in the USA? We don't have classes.


Do you read the news, or watch some on tv? What do you think those people rioting on the streets are screaming for and against?


bsliv said:


> People prosper in business by offer products or services that are valued by the consumer.


Corporations don't care about the consumer or progress. They care about profits, period. Again, corporations are there to extract wealth from the community, not to inject it.


bsliv said:


> It paled in comparison to our market economy.


Because the US controlled the currency standards. Immediately after the WWII, was gold - see Bretton Woods system, and from 1972 switched to oil.


bsliv said:


> China learned what works.


China adjusted. Before 1989, they were doing for the communist bloc the same thing they do today for the American corporations.

The main difference between Corporatocracy and Communism, is that Communism has only one big corporation (the Communist Party) that controls everything and has monopoly. As long as coporations have similar goals (to eliminate eachother and everybody else to achieve market monopoly - Uber an Lyft are perfect examples) their operations (corporations and communist parties) end up being very much alike.

China has no efficiency. Its power comes from "numbers" not "brains".


bsliv said:


> Hong Kong is currently rated as the freest economy


The Index of economic freedom puts the US, your "number one economic force this world has ever seen" on 17, BEHIND Ireland, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Iceland, Chile or Lithuania. Do you wonder why?

Ohhh... and about the lobbyists and the politicians... here is where they come from.
"Uber has deployed a record 40 lobbyists this year, 34 of whom are "revolvers," having previously held positions in government. These include Invariant LLC lobbyist Anne MacMillan former senior adviser to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.); Peck Madigan Jones' Jen Olson, former legislative director for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Ballard Partners' Brian Ballard, Dan McFaul and Pam Bondi, who were all members of the transition team for President Donald Trump. Uber also has five in-house lobbyists, three of whom are "revolvers," including Daniele Burr who worked with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)

Although Lyft is spending less on lobbying than Uber, that company had a record-breaking second quarter, spending $760,000 in the first half of the year, the most it's spent in the same period of any year. Like its larger competitor, most of Lyft's deployed lobbyists, 29 of 36, are revolvers. Hunter Bates and Brendan Dunn, two of Lyft's nine lobbyists from Akin Gump et al, the company's highest paid firm, both worked for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Also lobbying on behalf of Lyft for Akin Gump is Arshi Siddigui, who served as a policy adviser for Pelosi.

from

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...ial&utm_campaign=twitter_uber-lyft-lob-082020


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> Uber's ultimate goal (and a big part of their valuation) is to replace public transit and eventually private car ownership with cartels of SDCs. Travis referred to this goal as "all of the marbles" .
> 
> Thus, the bedrock core and most important part of the rideshare business has always been the Mon-Fri commutes, which have always been dominated by full time drivers.
> 
> Every ride is important to Uber, but without question rush hours are the MOST IMPORTANT rides.


Same goals as Agenda 21 concerning vehicles.

This is why Uber is not going Away.


----------



## Paul Vincent (Jan 15, 2016)

TX Uber Ant said:


> So after you become employees you get to pay:
> 
> Federal Income Taxes
> State Income Taxes
> ...


Under prop 22 you get less than minimum wage after your car expenses, and none of the benefits of your "socialist" protections. Drivers are screwed either way AB5/Prop 22



bsliv said:


> Which Uber official signed AB5 into law?
> 
> How many seats in the assembly are in the name of Uber? None. A business cannot hold an elective seat.
> 
> ...


Now you're just going in circles.


----------



## Kilroy4303 (Jul 31, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> Those 20% are bringing in most of the money, and they're also providing the most important rides as well.


 . .someone call an Uber X for this rider and his ego. I mean wow. .. . all those rides that Full time drivers are important. . . .and the part timers don't matter .. . .

if I had only known. . .


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Just because a constituent has an idea for a law does not mean it becomes a law. I want stop lights at every intersection. Will it become a law? No poof?
> 
> There is usually a committee or two and a couple of houses of elected officals that vote on a bill. At no time will a private company vote for passing or denying a bill. Do we need a civics lesson in addition to definitions?
> 
> What you call semantics is a clear cut difference. Uber will never run for office. Uber will never cast a vote.


Uber won't cast a vote but it will "influence" (like you say) the way thousands of people will vote.

They just have to spend a hundred million dollars to do it.



bsliv said:


> I figured you'd know that state the best.
> 
> And they stand.
> 
> ...


Through lobbyists, Uber "inspired", "influenced" legislators to create legislation that benefitted Uber.

In order to create something you need to be "inspired".

No inspiration or influence, no creation.

Uber creates bills through inspiration and influence.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

observer said:


> Uber won't cast a vote but it will "influence" (like you say) the way thousands of people will vote.
> 
> They just have to spend a hundred million dollars to do it.
> 
> ...


The mayors of San Diego and San Jose (who cast a vote in favor of a Google construction project one mile away from a property he owns) are now acting as mouthpieces for Uber and Lyft, practically begging them not to leave CA.

They act as if the state will shut down if those companies leave. They cried about all of the "good deeds" both companies do such as transporting patients. Of course they failed to mention that the drivers doing the transporting are being paid 1970s taxi rates for their service.

Apparently those political hacks missed the news story from last week about the three companies that announced their intention to start operating in CA if Uber and Lyft bail out.



Kilroy4303 said:


> and the part timers don't matter .. . .


Post a screenshot of me saying that or anything like that.


----------



## Kilroy4303 (Jul 31, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> Post a screenshot of me saying that or anything like that.


I will acknowledge you didnt say that directly, and I will retract statement if you define what "All the important rides" mean


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Kilroy4303 said:


> I will acknowledge you didnt say that directly, and I will retract statement if you define what "All the important rides" mean


I said the "most important" rides for Uber and Lyft are the rush hour rides and I stand by that comment. Uber and Lyft have made it crystal clear that they want to supplant public transit and eventually private car ownership. Travis referred to those goals as "all the marbles".

By far, the most important part of public transit is RUSH HOUR. And rush hour has always been Uber's and Lyft's primary focus. Not the only focus but by far the most important one.

Rush hour is and always has been dominated by full time drivers.

The fact that rush hour rides are the most important doesn't mean the other rides don't matter because they do, but not nearly as much.

The same applies to full vs part time drivers. Both are important but full timers are more important because they do most of the rush hour rides.


----------



## Kilroy4303 (Jul 31, 2020)

Nats121 said:


> I said the "most important" rides for Uber and Lyft are the rush hour rides and I stand by that comment. Uber and Lyft have made it crystal clear that they want to supplant public transit and eventually private car ownership. Travis referred to those goals as "all of the marbles".
> 
> By far, the most important part of public transit is RUSH HOUR. And rush hour has always been Uber's and Lyft's primary focus. Not the only focus but by far the most important one.
> 
> ...


OKay. . . that makes me take a totally different view of your previous comments. I understand what you are saying completely. I do issue a former retraction and apology.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Kilroy4303 said:


> OKay. . . that makes me take a totally different view of your previous comments. I understand what you are saying completely. I do issue a former retraction and apology.


No problem.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> I said the "most important" rides for Uber and Lyft are the rush hour rides and I stand by that comment. Uber and Lyft have made it crystal clear that they want to supplant public transit and eventually private car ownership. Travis referred to those goals as "all of the marbles".
> 
> By far, the most important part of public transit is RUSH HOUR. And rush hour has always been Uber's and Lyft's primary focus. Not the only focus but by far the most important one.
> 
> ...


I think that Uber/Lyft are setting the groundwork to make all drivers part time.

20-25 hours a week max. That way they will never have to pay out any of the benefits in their proposal.

That's why they keep hammering on this being a part time job.

It also plays on voters minds in that they think, ohhh they're part time they don't need any benefits.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

observer said:


> I think that Uber/Lyft are setting the groundwork to make all drivers part time.
> 
> 20-25 hours a week max. That way they will never have to pay out any of the benefits in their proposal.
> 
> ...


Uber can't get by with just part timers. As you've seen from recent articles, they rely heavily on full timers.

They've been hammering the part-time job lie since 2015 out of fear of employee status for drivers and the're still hammering that lie.

If you check the timeline of events you'll see that all of the "side-gig" talk started AFTER the 2014-15 pay cuts changed rideshare from a middle class job with decent pay rates into a poverty and even sub-poverty level job.

When pay rates were much higher Uber aggressively promoted rideshare as a good-paying FULL TIME job. The govt fined Uber millions of dollars for inflating yearly earnings of full timers in their ads.

AB5 never would have passed or even been written if rideshare was a "side-hustle". It was written after politicians became aware of how dependent Uber was on full timers.

Rush hour is dominated by full timers working 60-80 hours per week who rely on this job for their living. Those drivers can't afford to get by with only part time hours.

You're also overlooking the fact that FICA, Comp, and Unemployment have to be paid for part timers as well.

Uber would have to bite the bullet and pay to keep full timers on the payroll whether they like it or not. Fares will have to go up.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Nats121 said:


> Uber can't get by with just part timers. As you've seen from recent articles, they rely heavily on full timers.
> 
> They've been hammering the part-time job lie since 2015 out of fear of employee status for drivers and the're still hammering that lie.
> 
> ...


I understand that Uber would have to pay employee taxes for part time as well as full time employees.

I've been harping that on other threads where people say part timers get no benefits. Part timers get the same exact benefits as full timers except for medical.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> ost a screenshot of me saying that or anything like that.


no, you say full timers do vast majority of rides; something that is your opinion, vs a fact that can be pointed too. Still say 20% can't numerically out do 80% by a 'vast majority'. My opinion, tho the 80% is a sock solid fact.

And if Prop 22 goes down in flames; the single largest market will have ZERO full timers. Long live pt, aye?


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> no, you say full timers do vast majority of rides; something that is your opinion, vs a fact that can be pointed too. Still say 20% can't numerically out do 80% by a 'vast majority'. My opinion, tho the 80% is a sock solid fact.
> 
> And if Prop 22 goes down in flames; the single largest market will have ZERO full timers. Long live pt, aye?


False. I never said that.

Post a screenshot of me saying that.

I said the data from Seattle and NYC shows that most rides are done by full timers and the same may be occurring in other markets.

Try quoting me correctly next time.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> False. I never said that.


are you saying you have never said the 20% perform way more rides than the pt'imers? Really? Do tell us what words you use to describe your 'opinion'. We will wait.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> are you saying you have never said the 20% perform way more rides than the pt'imers? Really? Do tell us what words you use to describe your 'opinion'. We will wait.


That's right, I never said "way more" in reference to that. Screenshot the post in which I said that.

I already mentioned Seattle and NYC in my previous post.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> I never said "way more".


yup, you used a different word. But your opinion as I posted is exactly where you stand and have stood there for quite a long time. Own that. I on the other hand don't believe the maybe 20% do more trips on a consistent basis vs the 80%. I own that. Feel better, now? &#129335;‍♂


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> yup, you used a different word.


Yeah, I used a different word, and words matter.



SHalester said:


> But your opinion as I posted is exactly where you stand and have stood there for quite a long time. Own that. I on the other hand don't believe the maybe 20% do more trips on a consistent basis vs the 80%. I own that. Feel better, now?


When I said that the majority of rides in Seattle and NYC are being given by full timers, that's a fact. There's data available. If it wasn't fact, Uber would have presented data showing it isn't correct.

As you said I "own" what I said and I stand by it. You also attempt to muddy the waters by using the phrase "consistent basis". Again, if it wasn't "consistent", Uber would have presented data to show otherwise, and they haven't.


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

Beware of those that are leading you to be employees...

You will NOT be able to start or stop working whenever you want, you will NOT be able to deny rides AB5 is simply for those that are unable to COMPETE


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> You also attempt to muddy the waters by using the phrase "consistent basis".


Just accept I'll never accept that a group of less than 20% provide more rides than 80%. I've told you as much over and over and over. Math just doesn't work.
And neither does the stmt 'full timers are the backbone of RS'. horse shyte; bull shyte and any other shyte that is brown.

Clear? Agree to disagree and move the frak on to another issue. Glad you agreed where your 'opinion' is vs back tracking. Good job.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

jocker12 said:


> This is not about colors,


I suggest Cuba, Venezula, or North Korea would more suit your views than the USA.



observer said:


> Uber creates bills through inspiration and influence.


How much input did Uber have in AB5?

Is ther any amount of money the NRA could spend in California to eliminate gun control?

Spending by lobbyists can influence politicians. However, the politicians must be at least somewhat receptive to the lobbyists ideas.

ps. The NRA spends twice as much as Uber on lobbyists.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> I suggest Cuba, Venezula, or North Korea would more suit your views than the USA.
> 
> 
> How much input did Uber have in AB5?
> ...


How much input is Uber having in prop 22?


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> How much input is Uber having in prop 22?


Probably as much as they think necessary.

My point stands, Uber is not writing the laws. Uber is trying to influence the legislatures and voting citizens to Uber's point of view. Not semantics.

Uber could have wrote a proposal that matched prop 22 word for word. Uber could not write the law. Uber could not even vote for the prop. Citizens, individuals, cast votes. Businesses do not vote.

If Uber were writing the laws, AB5 would not exist.

If the NRA were writing the laws, I could take my personal property across the Nevada/California state line without fear of being imprisoned.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Probably as much as they think necessary.
> 
> My point stands, Uber is not writing the laws. Uber is trying to influence the legislatures and voting citizens to Uber's point of view. Not semantics.
> 
> ...


Yea, good try but no.

Wether you call it "influence" or "inspires" in the end it means, creates.

Semantics.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> Yea, good try but no.
> 
> Wether you call it "influence" or "inspires" in the end it means, creates.
> 
> Semantics.


Your lack of understanding of the English language is bewildering. I could attempt to influence Bill Gates to give me a billion dollars. Will I create a windfall for myself?

In your world, since Uber is attempting to influence the voters on prop 22, its a done deal. Uber will redraft the prop to fit their needs and the redraft will be codified as state law. 
.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> How much input is Uber having in prop 22?


they fund it directly.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Your lack of understanding of the English language is bewildering. I could attempt to influence Bill Gates to give me a billion dollars. Will I create a windfall for myself?
> 
> In your world, since Uber is attempting to influence the voters on prop 22, its a done deal. Uber will redraft the prop to fit their needs and the redraft will be codified as state law.
> .


"Influences", "inspires", "creates".

Same ol', same ol'.

No difference.



SHalester said:


> they fund it directly.


I know,

I'm just curious why he doesn't think Uber created this bill that if passed would be a law.

Who wrote the bill?

Santa Claus?


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> Who wrote the bill?


Elected officials write bills. No one else has the power.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Elected officials write bills. No one else has the power.


Thank you.

Be right back.

Who helps elected officials write bills?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sa...me-kennedy-fine-20180202-story.html?_amp=true
















Imagine that, lobbyists for Uber and Lyft "inspire" and "influence" lawmakers to create laws and regulations.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> Imagine that, lobbyists for Uber and Lyft "inspire" and "influence" lawmakers to create laws and regulations.


Just as I said, Uber and Lyft inspired and influenced lawmakers. It would be irresponsible for Uber and Lyft to not attempt to pursue their best interests.

On the other hand, lawmakers could be inspired and influenced by their 5 year old kid.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

There's a lot of "inspiring" , "influencing" going on.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...usiness/economy/gig-economy-lobbying.amp.html

















































https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...uber-triples-its-lobbying-efforts-in-2016?amp
















Seems to me like it's more creating than "inspiring" or "influencing".
























"In 31 states, the laws largely mirror Ubers recommended screening policies, in some cases, nearly word for word."

Does that sound like "influencing", "inspiring" or creating to you?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

"Lawmakers just inserted Ubers language".

That is creating.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> Does that sound like "influencing", "inspiring" or creating to you?


Uber/Lyft have no ability to create law. Just like other businesses, groups and individuals, they can pressure their elected representatives. You seem to be missing that step.

If Uber/Lyft could create a law that prop 22 is attempting to institute, there would be no discussion, case closed. But it isn't a closed case. The electorate will make the decision. If there is no opposition or the opposition is weak, I'd guess Uber/Lyft will win. If the opposition is tough, like it would be against the NRA, the winner might not be so clear cut, despite the amount of money spent lobbying.

The USA has elected representatives. Exxon cannot outlaw Shell. Do you think the USPS would be having issues if Amazon wrote the laws?



observer said:


> "Lawmakers just inserted Ubers language".
> 
> That is creating.


No, that's lawmakers believing Uber used the right language. Or lawmakers that are too lazy to look at the opposition. Or lawmakers not realizing the consequences of their actions.

Those who spend the most don't always win. Just ask the NY Yankees (or NRA). Does a big bankroll give one an advantage? Of course. But that doesn't make a winner. Wouldn't Uber/Lyft want to outlaw taxis and public transportation? Just a few more bucks?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

See my above post.

Lol, so who created the wording the lawmakers or Uber?


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

observer said:


> See my above post.
> 
> Lol, so who created the wording the lawmakers or Uber?


A lawmaker may copy Uber's proposal verbatim. Its still the lawmaker's bill. It still is no guarantee of the bill being passed.

In your view, how much does it cost to pass a popular law? How much does it cost to pass an unpopular law? How much will it cost to pass a law that demands every citizen pays me $1000?

Is a wolf evil for killing and eating an elk? No, that's what wolves do. Special interest groups do what special interests groups do, they try to push there agendas. Mothers Against Drunk Driving got legislation passed throughout this country. Is MADD evil?

In a recent 8 year period, there were over 10,000 bills introduced into legislatures that had the exact same wording as proposed by special interest groups. Legislation like the Right To Try bill which passed 41 states and allowed critically ill patients to try procedures that were not yet approved by medical authorities. Evil? Not to the terminally ill patients. This is what special interest groups do.

If you don't like the terminally ill to use not approved drugs, don't blame the patients. Blame the legislators.

Another copied piece of legislation required sex offenders to register with the local police? Evil? Maybe from the perspective of a sex offender.

Other copied bills restricted patients ability to sue businesses due to the use of asbestos. These bills were pushed by business special interests. Businesses do what businesses do, try to maximize profit. Don't blame the businesses. Blame the legislators.

Wolves will be wolves. Legislators are supposed to protect their constituents from wolves.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

bsliv said:


> I suggest


You suggest? When some people try to be smart, they actually end up being very funny.


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

observer said:


> How much input is Uber having in prop 22?


Prop 22 would be very workable if they simply got rid of *"per engaged mile"*

payments for the difference between a worker's net earnings, excluding tips, and a net earnings floor based on 120% of the minimum wage applied to a driver's engaged time and 30 cents, adjusted for inflation after 2021, *per engaged mile;*

*What else would the ballot measure change?*
Since Proposition 22 would consider app-based drivers to be independent contractors and not employees, state employment-related labor laws would not cover app-based drivers. Proposition 22 would enact labor and wage policies that are specific to app-based drivers and companies, including:[1]


payments for the difference between a worker's net earnings, excluding tips, and a net earnings floor based on 120% of the minimum wage applied to a driver's engaged time and 30 cents, adjusted for inflation after 2021, *per engaged mile*;
limiting app-based drivers from working more than 12 hours during a 24-hour period, unless the driver has been logged off for an uninterrupted 6 hours;
for drivers who average at least 25 hours per week of engaged time during a calendar quarter, require companies to provide healthcare subsidies equal to 82% the average California Covered (CC) premium for each month;
for drivers who average between 15 and 25 hours per week of engaged time during a calendar quarter, require companies to provide healthcare subsidies equal to 41% the average CC premium for each month;
require companies to provide or make available occupational accident insurance to cover at least $1 million in medical expenses and lost income resulting from injuries suffered while a driver was online (defined as when the driver is using the app and can receive service requests) but not engaged in personal activities;
require the occupational accident insurance to provide disability payments of 66 percent of a driver's average weekly earnings during the previous four weeks before the injuries suffered (while the driver was online but not engaged in personal activities) for upwards of 104 weeks (about 2 years);
require companies to provide or make available accidental death insurance for the benefit of a driver's spouse, children, or other dependents when the driver dies while using the app;


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane (Dec 31, 2015)

observer said:


> Why hasn't Uber purged non or minimal active drivers?


That would be illegally mistreating an independent contractor. Because how would it break the contract? Once you're in, you're in as long as you meet all the requirements, and the TNC can't compel responsive activity. I believe a TNC cannot demand a minimum quota of taking rides (contracts) within a set period of time.
It can really only get rid of inactive drivers by going hard on discipline to shake people loose.



bsliv said:


> We need thousands of rideshare companies. They could be organized under third party apps similar to the way hotel prices are organized under trivago, kayak, orbit, priceline, etc. But because Uber is so large, riders use their app and their app only.


You're onto something there. If somebody built a "quick comparison and order" third party app that got popular, it would democratize the market and potentially open up competition.
The linchpin to it is that the third-party app would need to be super-popular and trendy, a paradigm shift that generates the new standard for how people order rideshare. But then that app would need to just provide info -- it couldn't be a middleman and/or it must not upcharge a middleman fee because people get wise... so that's a hurdle.
BUT---- if that app sold ads or data to fund itself, gave a DISCOUNT for ordering a ride through it, and handled transactions as a middleman.... that could catch on as long as U & L signed on. Sort of the same idea as the hotel bookers you mentioned.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> A lawmaker may copy Uber's proposal verbatim. Its still the lawmaker's bill. It still is no guarantee of the bill being passed.
> 
> In your view, how much does it cost to pass a popular law? How much does it cost to pass an unpopular law? How much will it cost to pass a law that demands every citizen pays me $1000?
> 
> ...


Semantics.


----------



## islanddriver (Apr 6, 2018)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> None of this is really surprise:
> 
> did any of you really think it was the part timers who ever picked folks up at 4:00 am?


yes I have friends that work every weekend only from 10pm to 5am. isn't that part time????


----------



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

islanddriver said:


> yes I have friends that work every weekend only from 10pm to 5am. isn't that part time????


OK, 4:00 am on a tuesday then?


----------



## islanddriver (Apr 6, 2018)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> OK, 4:00 am on a tuesday then?


not a lot of pax or drivers out at 4am on a tues. mute point


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> I'm just curious why he doesn't think Uber created this bill that if passed would be a law.
> 
> Who wrote the bill?


it's a proposition, not a bill. And I suspect Uber, Lyft, DD and others all had a hand in crafting the proposition.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> it's a proposition, not a bill. And I suspect Uber, Lyft, DD and others all had a hand in crafting the proposition.


I stand corrected, it is a proposition.

I sometimes use Uber like Kleenex.


----------



## somedriverguy (Sep 6, 2016)

islanddriver said:


> not a lot of pax or drivers out at 4am on a tues. mute point


Moot point (autocorrect is not your friend) And the guy who needs to get to the airport by 6:30 am doesnt think its a moot point, he wants a ride damnit.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> it's a proposition, not a bill. And I suspect Uber, Lyft, DD and others all had a hand in crafting the proposition.


Of course they did. I hope no one thinks those opposed to prop 22 helped write it.

This is how politics works. If an interest group wants a law, the write it for the politician. If the interest group waited for the politician to get off their lazy backside, it might not ever get done. Just like if I want a newspaper reporter to report on a story, I'll supply the reporter with facts and an article and give the reporter permission to use my words. If the article gets published, he gets the credit, not me.



jocker12 said:


> You suggest? When some people try to be smart, they actually end up being very funny.


What is funny is a socialist explaining economics to a capitalist. Good try. Go join a commune. Let adults conduct business.


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

"""""""""But for those who work full-time or rely on driving as their primary source of income (or at least did before the pandemic hit), flexibility is less important compared to livable and predictable wages, healthcare, accident insurance, unemployment insurance, and labor protections that other employers are bound by and pay into """"""""""""""

Screw that .. Go get a JOB if you want to be an employee

Look I had a double lung transplant 25 years ago .. my days as a Heat treating (tempering steel) , hot tar roofer, and para transit bus driver(pushing 350 obese people in wheelchairs onto the bus is over... I do rideshare so I can start when I NEED too and End when I NEED too ... I may not be able to tar roofs anymore but I can drive...don't ask me to carry lift push-pull ... I don't need too, if I get sick off my medications I can start late ..or not at all ..

There are literally hundreds of thousands of rideshare drivers with the same basic issues ... some form of medical issue that for the most part prevents them from working as an employee ... many NEED the income and flexibility to maintain their health and Medicaid PLans ...

I'm fortunate that I can work 40 hours and make decent money with rideshare and can pay for my health INsurance and medications and if take days off when need medically without asking permissions .. without losing vacation time because you only get 3 sick days a year.

Rideshare is NOT A JOB .. it was never meant for young people to try and make a living at ...it's a GIG .. where young people can supplement their regular income. College students can work for their party money, middle-age people with health conditions that prevent them from working a regular job or who have already paid off their homes, have retired early, and just want to supplement and stay active. etc..

If you are in your 20's-30's unless you have a medical issue there is NO REASON for you to be trying to make Uber a full-time job..

It's stupid, and shows the person lack of foresight ..there is no health insurance no matching 401K no security

It isn't a JOB ..it's a Gig

If my Daughter 24 came home with a Boyfriend whose goal was to make a living doing rideshare I'd quickly be intruding her to young men out of college or trade school working as an accountant, dentists, roofer or Plumber.. someone with an actual skill and who will be able to financially take care of her.. who can provide a home, vacations and all the things she needs.

Rideshare as a IC with the ability to come and go as NEEDED is Perfect for millions of People... do not turn it into a "JOB" that will end up hurting those that need the gig far more than those that want to be told when to work, where to work, to pick up every single ride where to take a break , how long to take a break and if it's ok to take a piss .. God you people that want rideshare to be a Job are soooo f'ng STUPID

It isn't too late ... tell California you are OK with being a IC under Prop 22 IF one thing is changed..

has to be every mile not "engaged mile"

*What else would the ballot measure change?*
Since Proposition 22 would consider app-based drivers to be independent contractors and not employees, state employment-related labor laws would not cover app-based drivers. Proposition 22 would enact labor and wage policies that are specific to app-based drivers and companies, including:[1]


payments for the difference between a worker's net earnings, excluding tips, and a net earnings floor based on 120% of the minimum wage applied to a driver's engaged time and 30 cents, adjusted for inflation after 2021,* per engaged mile;*
limiting app-based drivers from working more than 12 hours during a 24-hour period, unless the driver has been logged off for an uninterrupted 6 hours;
for drivers who average at least 25 hours per week of engaged time during a calendar quarter, require companies to provide healthcare subsidies equal to 82% the average California Covered (CC) premium for each month;
for drivers who average between 15 and 25 hours per week of engaged time during a calendar quarter, require companies to provide healthcare subsidies equal to 41% the average CC premium for each month;
require companies to provide or make available occupational accident insurance to cover at least $1 million in medical expenses and lost income resulting from injuries suffered while a driver was online (defined as when the driver is using the app and can receive service requests) but not engaged in personal activities;
require the occupational accident insurance to provide disability payments of 66 percent of a driver's average weekly earnings during the previous four weeks before the injuries suffered (while the driver was online but not engaged in personal activities) for upwards of 104 weeks (about 2 years);
require companies to provide or make available accidental death insurance for the benefit of a driver's spouse, children, or other dependents when the driver dies while using the app;


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

bsliv said:


> I hope no one thinks those opposed to prop 22 helped write it.


none of the funding is hidden. And stands to reason they also wrote most of the proposition. web site has all the info in plain sight.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

bsliv said:


> explaining economics


Hahaha....



bsliv said:


> Just like if I want a newspaper reporter to report on a story, I'll supply the reporter with facts and an article


So this is how you think journalism, free journalism, works? You want the reporter to report, you give them the article and YOUR facts, and he/she ONLY tries to publish it in the publication he/she works for?
Hahahaha...
Now come back to reality please. That "journalist" is your 7 years old child, you "helped" with the addition homework, and the child tries to convinced the teacher he did it himself/herself.
Or...
You are doing PR for a corporation (a Communist Party in miniature), you want a reporter that is getting payed by the same corporation to publish a favorable story, you write the story for the reporter, and see if any journalistic organization he approaches with that garbage written by you, fells for the scam.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

BTW, all those thinking that Prop 22 is the answer.

It's not.

All of you that "are raking in the big bux", "making it work for you" and "love the the flexibility", need to realize that Prop 22 is not only a minimum.

It's also a maximum.

You won't be able to maiximize your driving to increase your pay.

You will be paid no less than 130% of minimum wage per "engaged mile".

You will also be paid no more than 130% of minimum wage per "engaged mile".

That's it.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> BTW, all those thinking that Prop 22 is the answer.


in a perfect world neither AB5 or Prop 22 exist. The vast majority of 'drivers' do not care to be employees. In calif it is 4 to 1.

However, AB5 does exist. The bare minimum Prop 22 blasts the 'employee' mandate off the map (for now) if it passes and all indicators show it will be a landslide win.

Anything else that comes with Prop 22 is, again, for those doing this north of 40 hours a week; that certainly is not me, so I don't give a shyte about the other elements.

Just want the schedule and a positive cash flow; that simple. Otherwise leave me the frak alone.


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

observer said:


> BTW, all those thinking that Prop 22 is the answer.
> 
> It's not.
> 
> ...


 That is NOT correct ... Just read the Proposition... Min + 120% while engaged is the MINIMUM


----------



## somedriverguy (Sep 6, 2016)

dauction said:


> That is NOT correct ... Just read the Proposition... Min + 120% while engaged is the MINIMUM
> 
> View attachment 503188


Because UBER has such a stellar track record of sharing out the largess to the drivers who perform the actual work and provide the capital (that's your car) for the engagement of the business.


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

somedriverguy said:


> Because UBER has such a stellar track record of sharing out the largess to the drivers who perform the actual work and provide the capital (that's your car) for the engagement of the business.


I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation.

With AB5 ..you will never make more than Minimum wage ...with Prop 22 at least you have the possibility of earning more. And with Prop 22 Uber cant tell you when to work and when to stop. You can still refuse rides ..you won't be able to refuse rides under AB5

Again .. the bottom line is if you cant make at least Min wage as an IC with Uber/Lyft that's because of the Driver, not Uber/Lyft ...there are hundreds of thousands of drivers that know how to make their IC business profitable.

If AB5 passes I will shake my head in disbelief as those drivers support cheer the fact that they now make min wage .. it's fing ******ed...go to McDonalds if you want Min wage. The Bing and Moaning won't stop even if AB5 wins ..in fact, it will increase because drivers will get the slap of reality very quickly that they are now Employees of Uber/Lyft .. completely at Uber/Lyfts mercy


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

dauction said:


> That is NOT correct ... Just read the Proposition... Min + 120% while engaged is the MINIMUM
> 
> View attachment 503188


Where in your quote does it say minimum PLUS 120%?

That's even worse than the 130% that I wrote.

You do realize that at 120% of the minimum wage, drivers will be paid 15.60 only while on a trip.

That's it, 15.60 an hour.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_...tractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020)


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

ANT 7 said:


> The actual % or anything else is irrelevant.
> 
> This is a battle about a *BANKRUPT SOCIALIST STATE* trying to collect more taxes from people who legally were IC's to begin with.


Explain how they will get "more taxes" when deductions for must drivers will wipe out their tax debt on their driving income?



dauction said:


> I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation.
> 
> With AB5 ..you will never make more than Minimum wage ...with Prop 22 at least you have the possibility of earning more. And with Prop 22 Uber cant tell you when to work and when to stop. You can still refuse rides ..you won't be able to refuse rides under AB5
> 
> ...


Based on what Factual data (eliminate your "feels" and assumptions) do you think drivers will "only make minimum wage". To have "employees" doing the driving the companies will have to eliminate the majority of the over saturation of drivers (can't afford to pay drivers for sitting still) so that drivers keep rolling with passengers. More paid trips doesn't equal lower pay...


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Another thing, does it specify WHICH minimum wage, the state or local minimum wage.

Remember, under prop 22 drivers aren't covered by minimum wage laws. Drivers like those in San Francisco and other cities in the bay area with higher minimum wages will be very pissed.


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

observer said:


> Where in your quote does it say minimum PLUS 120%?
> 
> That's even worse than the 130% that I wrote.
> 
> ...


So you're saying drivers already make more than $15.60

I agree..

Thanks for making my point &#128513;


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

dauction said:


> So you're saying drivers already make more than $15.60
> 
> I agree..
> 
> Thanks for making my point &#128513;


No, I'm saying that is what Uber would pay at 120% of mimimum wage.

13 dollars an hour plus 20% of 13 an hour =2.60.

13.00 + 2.60 = 15.60

That is what Uber would pay under Prop 22 per engaged mile.

You have to sit around 20-30 mminutes while Uber gets you another fare?

That's free on your part.

Here's something else.










"adujusted for inflation after 2021"

Does that decouple the 120% minimum wage after 2021?

Leaving only increases for inflation?

Words matter.

And with Uber you better believe they sat down and thought about EVERY SINGLE WORD in the proposition.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

dauction said:


> get the slap of reality very quickly that they are now Employees of Uber/Lyft


...actually if AB5 is left untouched they will be here whining and moaning and trowing a tantrum because they weren't selected to be employees. Ooops.


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

observer said:


> No, I'm saying that is what Uber would pay at 120% of mimimum wage.
> 
> 13 dollars an hour plus 20% of 13 an hour =2.60.
> 
> ...


I know I was giving you grief...I have posted before that if "engaged time" was removed from prop 22 then Prop 22 would be a very acceptable solution. I have said that numerous times.

That said for me personally that would mean in an 8-hour shift I might have 1/2 that's no engaged ..in my market I am stacked with rides, not high paying rides..just a lot of small rides one right after the other. I like that. other Drivers probably not

I can see some issues that Uber would have with eliminating engaged rides ...If Uber pays you for the full hour you can still not be monogamous..you can cheat Uber by doing Lyft rides while Ube is paying you !! So yeah I can understand why that language (engaged ride) is included.

words matter .. yep.. read again.. the net earnings *FLOOR.... You already want a raise?

I can see the *****ing and moaning about not getting a raise will be the next thing under AB5.*

If Rideshare is turned into a Job then it will be a Minimum wage Job ..it is what it is. at least the way it is now you can make more than minimum wage IF you know what you are doing, IF you speak English, I'm the least racists old white guy you'll ever meet ..BUT this is a Customer service position and you need to speak and understand English fluently. If you drive smart. My Market I need to hustle to make good money ...your market maybe you can be more selective on which rides to take .. thats all gone under AB5 ...it's minimum wage for all even those that work harder or smarter


----------



## Ubereater (Dec 25, 2015)

dauction said:


> If Rideshare is turned into a Job then it will be a Minimum wage Job ..it is what it is. at least the way it is now you can make more than minimum wage IF you know what you are doing, IF you speak English, I'm the least racists old white guy you'll ever meet ..BUT this is a Customer service position and you need to speak and understand English fluently. If you drive smart. My Market I need to hustle to make good money ...your market maybe you can be more selective on which rides to take .. thats all gone under AB5 ...it's minimum wage for all even those that work harder or smarter


Well, if you don't want to be employee and you know what you're doing why don't you start driving your own customers ?
That's the meaning of being "independent" and "flexible" in the English dictionary.
The trouble is the large corporation Uber which subsided by the PUBLIC wants to drive the small INDEPENDENT and FLEXIBLE operators out of the markets all over the globe. That's the meaning of Socialism in English dictionary, my friend.
And if Uber wants Socialism, let 'em have it.


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

Ubereater said:


> Well, if you don't want to be employee and you know what you're doing why don't you start driving your own customers ?
> That's the meaning of being "independent" and "flexible" in the English dictionary.
> The trouble is the large corporation Uber which subsided by the PUBLIC wants to drive the small INDEPENDENT and FLEXIBLE operators out of the markets all over the globe. That's the meaning of Socialism in English dictionary, my friend.
> And if Uber wants Socialism, let 'em have it.


I actually did start my own in Feb .. $7K a year Insurance shut me down pretty quick as COVID started hitting hard in March.

That said ..I still have my regular Customers with Lyft and Uber ... in my market 50% or more of my rides are repeats. The same people I take to work every day, University ..same hungover people on the weekends that we go get their vehicles after their night out etc..

*Uber is Not Publically funded ..it is Funded by Capitalist.. largely Institutional Investors ... *










*your City Bus line is a Taxpayer-funded ..socialist system of transportation.*


----------



## Ubereater (Dec 25, 2015)

dauction said:


> I actually did start my own in Feb .. $7K a year Insurance shut me down pretty quick as COVID started hitting hard in March.
> 
> That said ..I still have my regular Customers with Lyft and Uber ... in my market 50% or more of my rides are repeats. The same people I take to work every day, University ..same hungover people on the weekends that we go get their vehicles after their night out etc..
> 
> ...


Oh yes, The large corporations like Uber/Lyft have not made any profit but somehow survived for years longer than any PRIVATE company would have done.
This is because funds are being artificially funnelled into them from external sources - from society as a whole (through PUBLIC shareholders or just straight from the Saudie State). Uber/Lyft didn't earn their revenue legitimately through the profit, instead they had money granted to them in a hope that eventually they will turn a profit.
The only reason corporations get Iarger and larger is because the State ( and State IS Public) is proping up the rotten edifice of their business.
There's no PRIVATE ownership/control of the means of production in this model. That's Socialism.


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

Ubereater said:


> Oh yes, The large corporations like Uber/Lyft have not made any profit but somehow survived for years longer than any PRIVATE company would have done.
> This is because funds are being artificially funnelled into them from external sources - from society as a whole (through PUBLIC shareholders or just straight from the Saudie State). Uber/Lyft didn't earn their revenue legitimately through the profit, instead they had money granted to them in a hope that eventually they will turn a profit.
> The only reason corporations get Iarger and larger is because the State ( and State IS Public) is proping up the rotten edifice of their business.
> There's no PRIVATE ownership/control of the means of production in this model. That's Socialism.


wtf is wrong with your Brain..?

Uber and Lyft are funded VIA its INvestors ...how is that so difficult to comprehend?

Mass transit is Socialism ..Not Uber and Lyft


----------



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

observer said:


> BTW, all those thinking that Prop 22 is the answer.
> 
> It's not.
> 
> ...


The prop 22 pay rates are BS, and allow uber/lyft to cut pay.
Prop 22 pay is 
30c a mile
(at $15 an hour min wage) .3250 a minute. (15.00/60 X 1.3)

Let's do an apples to apples comparison of _one hour_. The sad thing is that on prop 22 pay scale your either screwed on mileage for driving a ton of miles, or your screwed on idle time versus being an employee, or both.

Lots of idle time = employee status is better,
Lots of mileage = Employee status is better.

In that one hour you drive a total of 20 miles spend 25 minutes waiting for pings, and 35 minutes actually working.

As an employee you would get $15 and $11.50 in mileage. Total of $26.50 (With $15 being taxable)

As a prop 22 IC you would get $6.60 in mileage $11.37 for time. for a total of $17.97 (With $6.47 being taxable)

Another example...

This hour you spend 50 minutes idle, then get a 45 mile airport run. total time spent 1.75 hours (an hour 45). Would uber pay employees to sit queued at the airport? well to prevent a shortage of drivers they might, how long would they pay you to queue is anyone's guess but they very easily could end up having to.

Prop 22 model
$17.87 in time (55 minutes X 32.5c a minute)
$13.50 in mileage (45 miles at 30c a mile)
$31.37

Employee model (getting paid to sit at the airport)
$26.25 in time (1:45 in time)
$25.87 in mileage
$52.12 (plus a potential for getting paid to return back from town if there's no business where you dropped)


----------



## Ubereater (Dec 25, 2015)

dauction said:


> wtf is wrong with your Brain..?
> 
> Uber and Lyft are funded VIA its INvestors ...how is that so difficult to comprehend?
> 
> ...


Yes, mass transit is Socialism .....
and so is Uber/Lyft !

Instead of mocking me look at definition of "Capitalism" and "Socialism" and tell me where I got it wrong. I'll be happy to stand corrected.

"Capitalism is an economic system based on the PRIVATE ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."

"PRIVATE property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and from collective (or cooperative) property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities".


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

Ubereater said:


> Yes, mass transit is Socialism .....
> and so is Uber/Lyft !
> 
> Instead of mocking me look at definition of "Capitalism" and "Socialism" and tell me where I got it wrong. I'll be happy to stand corrected.
> ...


The State does Not own Uber and Ube is not a collective it is publically held investor held Company..what part of that don't you understand?

*so it's 6 am here and I am going to go to work.. I am deciding to go to work today and at this time..Not Uber, Not Lyft, not the State

I DECIDE and that is POWER that I don't want to give up to Uber*


----------



## Ubereater (Dec 25, 2015)

dauction said:


> The State does Not own Uber and Ube is not a COLLECTIVE it is PUBLICLY held investor held Company..what part of that don't you understand?


I highlighted the contradiction in your own post.
Edit. Can't be bothered arguing any more.
As I said : want to be independent and flexible ? Start driving your own customers, start being a CAPITALIST FFS.


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

Ubereater said:


> I highlighted the contradiction in your own post.


There is no Contradiction.. it is Publically Held by Investors.. you can choose to invest or not . That's Capitalism.

Socialism is where everyone is invested whether they like it or not ..Library, Police, Fire, Roads etc... as a taxpayer you are invested where you like it or not.

come on same "Uncle".. You know I'm right , your pride is simply not letting you admit it 

lol ..so I have a best friend..going bald..as a friend I didn't feed him any BS , I straight up told him to get the fing thing off his head.

Be proud of your Baldhead..shine it up and let it draw in the women that actually LIKE and thin it's sexy .. don't be a faker and don't pull in the faker women.

I apologize for going after your brain size ...simply treating you as I would a friend .. stop the nonsense


----------

