# New York did it — Chicago is up next



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

*EXCLUSIVE: Aldermen push for ride-share drivers to get pay raise*

Vrooom doom?

Are Chicago's ride-share drivers being taken for a ride?

Two top Chicago aldermen think so when it comes to the wages of ride-share drivers minus job-incurred expenses - which puts them below Chicago's minimum wage.

Sneed has learned Aldermen *Anthony Beale* (9th) and *Edward Burke* (14th) plan to propose a little protection: a minimum pay rate for ride-share drivers that will match or exceed the Chicago minimum wage - after accounting for costs like insurance and gas expenses incurred by their job.

"These people work on short-term contracts often for modest pay minus benefits," said Burke.

According to a Sun-Times editorial Friday, the typical Chicago Uber driver's take-home pay is roughly $11.53 an hour - subtracting expenses from earnings.

The minimum wage in Chicago is $12.

Beale tells Sneed they will also review capping the number of ride-share drivers to address traffic congestion in the city in light of word Wednesday New York became the first major American city to halt new vehicle licenses for ride-hail services.

The move by New York was considered a significant setback to Uber in its largest U.S. market.

The New York City Council legislation passed overwhelmingly and caps the number of for-hire vehicles for a year while the city studies the booming industry.

The bills also allow New York to set a minimum pay rate for drivers.

"This whole ride-share industry has been a debacle from the very beginning," said Beale.

"The fact they've been able to basically dominate the [cab] industry with their own rules and regulations initially was a nightmare. So many drivers are working below minimum wage.

"I'm glad we are finally getting some real reform on the ride-share industry; the traffic problems we have now are ridiculous," he said.

"Traffic to O'Hare is ridiculous. Every other car to O'Hare has a share ride sticker in their windows. They are rearing up the city's streets. It's getting out of control."

The aldermen also plan to conduct a series of hearings before the City Council to solicit the view of ride-share drivers on how to reform the industry.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/aldemen-ride-share-drivers-pay-raise/


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

All they need to do is put a maximum percentage of the fare paid by the rider that Uber and Lyft can take and that's all drivers need.


----------



## mrpjfresh (Aug 16, 2016)

Mr. Beale talking like a well-known member here on UP.net. Good luck to you Aldermen Beale and Burke. We all know the bribes, threats, cajoling and crying are incoming in swift order and in force!


----------



## tcaud (Jul 28, 2017)

This really sucks. Now it's clear all the cities are going this rideshare capping deal. The taxi companies and unions win... charismatic union insiders get to keep their jobs and the rest of us are screwed.

Not hardly. Hate to say it, but it'll look good for GOP in the cities in 2020.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

tcaud said:


> This really sucks. Now it's clear all the cities are going this rideshare capping deal. The taxi companies and unions win... charismatic union insiders get to keep their jobs and the rest of us are screwed.
> 
> Not hardly. Hate to say it, but it'll look good for GOP in the cities in 2020.


Actually the citizens of the city win.


----------



## Brooklyn (Jul 29, 2014)

tcaud said:


> This really sucks. Now it's clear all the cities are going this rideshare capping deal. The taxi companies and unions win... charismatic union insiders get to keep their jobs and the rest of us are screwed.
> 
> Not hardly. Hate to say it, but it'll look good for GOP in the cities in 2020.


Lol do people really believe in these "companies" and "unions"?

Like do you REALLY think this exists?


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

tcaud said:


> Not hardly. Hate to say it, but it'll look good for GOP in the cities in 2020.


Just curious: why do you "hate to say it"?
What has our GOP president done that is so bad?

Is it:
* bringing N. Korea under some control?
* enacting policies that have the highest rate of brown people employment, EVER?
* lowering taxes to middle class?
* best Wall Street (pension) performance in 25 years?
* taking a tough stance with Russia?
* addressing our trade imbalance with China, Mexico, Canada, EU?
* getting our NATO "allies" to pay their fair share?
* appointing judges that will actually uphold the Constitution?
* seeing to our border security?
* freeing up our energy businesses so that we are no longer dependent upon middle east oil?
OR, is the this one. This one pisses off American Communists the most:
* he s actually doing what he SAID he would do. Just not used to a politician that does what he promises, are ya?


----------



## FormerTaxiDriver♧ (Apr 5, 2018)

Many drivers are registered voters!


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

If Chicago thinks this is an issue they should devote attention to, they may want to look around a bit.

*Last weekend, 74 people were shot in Chicago, 12 died including several children.*

I know Chicago is the home of "Pay to Play" but these politicians ought to think about more than lining their pockets with payoff money.

But that probably really is too much to expect from Chicago -- which actually would be one of America's great cities if it weren't for the corruption and violence they love so much.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Murders are a problem, but viewed statistically, Chicago is only a little higher than Miami based on murders per 100k people.

Not that this has any bearing on rideshare. The proposal of a cap on drivers is a good thing, but what I am concerned with is that many "Chicago drivers" dont live very close to the city. So their fate lies with alderman we didn't elect, and dont represent us.

Another concern I have is, the number of cars at the airport is directly proportionate to the number of parties of people needing rides to or from. If you snapped your fingers and made cabs, TNPs, and limos disappear, you would have just as many people needing rides that aren't served by, or unwilling to take public transportation. At ORD, the worst congestion lies at the TNP pickup areas, which should never have been up on the departure level.

In the city itself, there has been too many cars for decades.

You can't cultivate one of the 3 largest convention destinations without creating enormous demand for transportation. The city shouldn't blame rideshare companies for the crowds. But they need to find a balanced way to regulate the drivers.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

UberBeemer said:


> You can't cultivate one of the 3 largest convention destinations without creating enormous demand for transportation. The city shouldn't blame rideshare companies for the crowds. But they need to find a balanced way to regulate the drivers.


Why?
Why does the government need to 'regulate drivers'?
Whats wrong with capitalism?
What is so wrong with freedom?

One of the biggest reasons Chicago is in the financial toilet that it's in is because of regulation, licensing, regulation, limits, subsidies, guarantees and ... free stuff.

Maybe Chicago should consider something really revolutionary.
Freedom.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

UberBastid said:


> Why?
> Why does the government need to 'regulate drivers'?
> Whats wrong with capitalism?
> What is so wrong with freedom?
> ...


The idea that business is better without regulatory constraints allows companies to make a mess of things in pursuit of profit because there is no check on their greed.

Uber and Lyft, and the like, would hire any idiot or criminal otherwise. There would be no reason to keep rates from dropping g as long as they could enlist unlimited numbers of drivers with promises of easy money.


----------



## tcaud (Jul 28, 2017)

I was mad but then I realized, I got nothing to worry about. You can't put a cap on licenses offered. Experts in a field can be selective in their training choices, but this is an implicit cap made by free will (and even it can conceivably be challenged). This cap is unconstitutional.



UberBeemer said:


> The idea that business is better without regulatory constraints allows companies to make a mess of things in pursuit of profit because there is no check on their greed.
> 
> Uber and Lyft, and the like, would hire any idiot or criminal otherwise. There would be no reason to keep rates from dropping g as long as they could enlist unlimited numbers of drivers with promises of easy money.


If you're gonna opine on this stuff then you should step down as mod.

Your argument is bullshit because insurance and lawyers.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

tcaud said:


> I was mad but then I realized, I got nothing to worry about. You can't put a cap on licenses offered. Experts in a field can be selective in their training choices, but this is an implicit cap made by free will (and even it can conceivably be challenged). This cap is unconstitutional.
> s.


Many professions put "caps" on admission. 
Lawyers put caps on based on how difficult the bar test is.
CPA's do that same thing.
So do Realtors.

They can adjust the participation by adjusting the difficulty of the license test, or educational requirements, or cost of licensure and admission to associations that the licensee must join. For example: it is very expensive to be a real estate agent in California. Not only license cost, but the cost of joining all the associations such as MLS, local boards, CAR and NAR.


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

tcaud said:


> I was mad but then I realized, I got nothing to worry about. You can't put a cap on licenses offered. Experts in a field can be selective in their training choices, but this is an implicit cap made by free will (and even it can conceivably be challenged). This cap is unconstitutional.
> 
> If you're gonna opine on this stuff then you should step down as mod.
> 
> Your argument is bullshit because insurance and lawyers.


Funny, the Moderator Manual clearly states that I am entitled to Express opinions even though you disagree with them.

Also, which clause or amendment in the constitution talks about business licenses? I think you are mistaken. Cities have limits on taxi medallions. That's partly why they used to be so expensive. They can easily do the same with TNP if the choose.


----------



## Bob Driver (Sep 14, 2017)

UberBeemer said:


> Funny, the Moderator Manual clearly states that I am entitled to Express opinions even though you disagree with them.
> 
> Also, which clause or amendment in the constitution talks about business licenses? I think you are mistaken. Cities have limits on taxi medallions. That's partly why they used to be so expensive. They can easily do the same with TNP if the choose.


if anyone is interested I have my Uber account for sale, let's say starting the bid at 25k


----------



## tcaud (Jul 28, 2017)

Bob Driver said:


> if anyone is interested I have my Uber account for sale, let's say starting the bid at 25k


And you actually believe people would pay that don't you?


----------



## UberBeemer (Oct 23, 2015)

Bob Driver said:


> if anyone is interested I have my Uber account for sale, let's say starting the bid at 25k


Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk


----------



## Bob Driver (Sep 14, 2017)

tcaud said:


> And you actually believe people would pay that don't you?


Ya never know whoever thought that they would pay millions for medallions at one time lol


----------



## Wombat7 (Dec 23, 2016)

tcaud said:


> I was mad but then I realized, I got nothing to worry about. You can't put a cap on licenses offered. Experts in a field can be selective in their training choices, but this is an implicit cap made by free will (and even it can conceivably be challenged). This cap is unconstitutional.
> 
> If you're gonna opine on this stuff then you should step down as mod.
> 
> Your argument is bullshit because insurance and lawyers.


That's pure BS.


----------



## Wombat7 (Dec 23, 2016)

UberBastid said:


> Just curious: why do you "hate to say it"?
> What has our GOP president done that is so bad?
> 
> Is it:
> ...


I'd say he's screwed the pooch on every item you listed.

Especially the part about American Communists. For all practical purposes, they're non-existent. On top of that you're making the thoroughly stupid mistake that anyone that disagrees with Trump is a traitor when the reality is the Trump is proving to be the highest ranking Putin mole in our government and the Republican party along with an average of 40-45% of the voting population is enabling his insanity.

Let me be clear: I am not a communist and I am not a socialist. I'm also not a Randian acolyte but I do believe in controlled capitalism. By that, I mean that number 1, I believe very strongly in universal healthcare and the expansion of social security and free post high-school education. I also believe that yes, it is possible to be too rich. Funding what I've already mentioned plus a strong military, effective law enforcement and an effective judicial system will require income redistribution (it's wonderful to visualize your Randian head exploding). This can be done with a return to an effective progressive taxation of the 10%(oooooh, there goes your head again).

Getting back to your points: every one of the except for the last one have resulted in... zero.

North Korea.... all they've done is gone silent. Follow the news; they're simply making better weapons without the public sound effects. Same old, same old.

Employed brown people.... due to policies previously in place. The numbers hit while he was in charge, he claimed the glory, as usual.

Lowered taxes.... what ridiculously BS from the darkest deepest pit of Trumpian hell. Inflation, which will be compounded by increased prices brought on by his tariffs has already wiped that out for the rapidly diminishing middle class.

Wall Street pension performance.... what pension? Pensions have all but gone away and Rethuglican dogma requires that they disappear completely. Attacks on government pensions, probably that last pensions available to the common man are under constant attack. Military retirement is evolving to a version of a 401K. This just a "look at the shiny object in this hand, not the fecal matter in the other" type of statistic. It has no bearing on the vast majority of Americans.

Tough stance on Russia.... what tough stance? Bending over for Putin is not my idea of a tough stance.

Trade imbalances.... The Randian Wet Dream of Pure Capitalism. Keeps prices down, makes things work. The idiot throws a wrench in the gears and you see this as good. Anything wrong with that picture?

Getting NATO to pay their fair share.... Are they? They've made some minor noise in that direction, but are they? Turkey? Greece? Poland? England?

Judges who uphold the Constitution.... LMFAO!!! Kavanaugh? He's had 2-3 rejected, seriously unqualified. Look at what he's doing with immigration judges.

Seeing to our border security.... I live near the border. It's there. A wall does nothing. On the other hand, keeping out non-white people of any type from all over the world... he's on it. Not that it will do any good by 2050.

Freeing up our energy business.... again, it was already there, thanks to both Bush and Obama. This idiot had zero to do with it. All he's done is force coal, which by the way was and is on it's capitalistic death bed, on us.

It's all what he said he would do alright. I don't think the American public thought when they voted that the Republican party would renege on their sworn oath to protect and defend the United States. Actually, they did vote against him. Another reason to eliminate the Electoral College.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> All they need to do is put a maximum percentage of the fare paid by the rider that Uber and Lyft can take and that's all drivers need.


They need to raise rates as well, percentage of a smaller pizza is still not enough



Brooklyn said:


> Lol do people really believe in these "companies" and "unions"?
> 
> Like do you REALLY think this exists?


There are great and terrible unions and companies


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Wombat7 said:


> That's pure BS.


Agree.
I can't imagine what part of the US Constitution does not allow gov't to limit business activities. Mebe tcaud could tell us what part of the Constitution this is in. I don't need the entire quote, just the reference, I can look it up and read it.



Wombat7 said:


> I'd say he's screwed the pooch on every item you listed.
> 
> Especially the part about American Communists. For all practical purposes, they're non-existent. On top of that you're making the thoroughly stupid mistake that anyone that disagrees with Trump is a traitor when the reality is the Trump is proving to be the highest ranking Putin mole in our government and the Republican party along with an average of 40-45% of the voting population is enabling his insanity.
> 
> ...


We are never going to agree comrade.
Carry on. I will never stand in _your _way of expressing your opinions.

Yes, eliminate the EC if your Supreme Commander says so. Ok with me. Trump would have won the popular vote too IF he'd of known that was the rules. He didn't campaign at all in California - and if he had he'd of gotten better than 45% of the vote. Which means that with the EC, he'd of lost and wasted his campaign money. In a populist vote, campaigning in the whole country ... he'd of won the country. Different rules necessitate different strategies.

You can try to rewrite history if you want. But, fact is, Trump is YOUR president too. Oh, yes he is, IF you are a citizen, he is your president. Gerrymandering, and engaging in mental self-pleasuring won't change that. And, four years from now, he will still be your president.


----------



## Wombat7 (Dec 23, 2016)

UberBastid said:


> Agree.
> I can't imagine what part of the US Constitution does not allow gov't to limit business activities. Mebe tcaud could tell us what part of the Constitution this is in. I don't need the entire quote, just the reference, I can look it up and read it.
> 
> We are never going to agree comrade.
> ...


Awwww, did someone pop your little right-weinie bubble? Did the bad free thinker tinkle in your Cheerios?

It was really sweet of you to mention freedom of speech by the way. Wouldn't want you to feel uncomfortable or anything.

Re-writing history, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and yes, mental self-pleasuring (see Donald Trump) are all the rage in right-weinie world today.

And guess what: I'm a citizen. And Trump's not my president.

That's right. He's the President of the government of the United States. He's the Chief Executive Officer charged with the administration of the Federal government. The anus is nothing to me, not my boss, not my leader, and as much as he would like to be, he's not my king.

Basically, he's just like any other CEO that rides in my car except that he has taken an oath to protect and defend the nation, a simple job at which he has failed miserably.

"And four years from now he'll still be your president." He's not my president now and he won't be anyone's president then. You'll probably find him on some jackass Faux reality show. Or working really hard at one of his golf courses.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

When a company is allowed to operate at such a massive loss every year, you have to do something like this. The business model is fake, supply and demand is not really a factor. All Uber wants is to destroy everything in it's path then set prices as a monopoly.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

UberBastid said:


> I can't imagine what part of the US Constitution does not allow gov't to limit business activities. Mebe tcaud could tell us what part of the Constitution this is in.


The U.S. Constitution doesn't work like that. Powers delegated to the federal government are specific and limited. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Governments should be promoting business activity, not restricting it.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> When a company is allowed to operate at such a massive loss every year, you have to do something like this. The business model is fake, supply and demand is not really a factor. All Uber wants is to destroy everything in it's path then set prices as a monopoly.


Allowed? Allowed to operate? And, who, pray tell, who should not allow a private company to do business as they see fit? As long as I am not breaking any laws, why shouldn't I be allowed to start a company, run it foolishly and lose all my money? Viva la capitalism! Freedom is a dangerous thing, and frightening to some.



bsliv said:


> The U.S. Constitution doesn't work like that. Powers delegated to the federal government are specific and limited. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
> 
> Governments should be promoting business activity, not restricting it.


Well said. That's why I asked the question of the OP. I really wanted to see the part of the Constitution that said that it is not allowed for a company to lose money.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

UberBastid said:


> Allowed? Allowed to operate? And, who, pray tell, who should not allow a private company to do business as they see fit? As long as I am not breaking any laws, why shouldn't I be allowed to start a company, run it foolishly and lose all my money? Viva la capitalism! Freedom is a dangerous thing, and frightening to some.


And well said yourself.


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

Wombat7 said:


> I'd say he's screwed the pooch on every item you listed.
> 
> Especially the part about American Communists. For all practical purposes, they're non-existent. On top of that you're making the thoroughly stupid mistake that anyone that disagrees with Trump is a traitor when the reality is the Trump is proving to be the highest ranking Putin mole in our government and the Republican party along with an average of 40-45% of the voting population is enabling his insanity.
> 
> ...


This guy is such a joke lol. I bet his morning wood is orange from dreaming about Donald all night. Such faux outrage.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

UberBastid said:


> Allowed? Allowed to operate? And, who, pray tell, who should not allow a private company to do business as they see fit? As long as I am not breaking any laws, why shouldn't I be allowed to start a company, run it foolishly and lose all my money? Viva la capitalism! Freedom is a dangerous thing, and frightening to some.
> 
> Well said. That's why I asked the question of the OP. I really wanted to see the part of the Constitution that said that it is not allowed for a company to lose money.


Because it's predatory, there's no way to 'compete' with a company which can burn through 4 Billion/yr keeping prices artificially low. Nothing to do with actual regulated Capitalism.

They absolutely are breaking the law, they do street hails without paying for a Medallion. 'Ehails' are street hails, they're done from the street in real time.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Because it's predatory, there's no way to 'compete' with a company which can burn through 4 Billion/yr keeping prices artificially low. Nothing to do with actual regulated Capitalism.
> 
> They absolutely are breaking the law, they do street hails without paying for a Medallion. 'Ehails' are street hails, they're done from the street in real time.


If they breaking the law, then file a complaint.
Or sue in civil court.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

UberBastid said:


> If they breaking the law, then file a complaint.
> Or sue in civil court.


They did. All of the verdicts are nonsensical.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Kodyhead said:


> They need to raise rates as well, percentage of a smaller pizza is still not enough
> 
> There are great and terrible unions and companies


When Lyft and Uber are not getting as much as they are used to then they will be forced to raise rates. They are currently getting about 33% on most fares and even much more in certain instances. You cap it at 20% or even 25% and they will be forced to raise rates as a result to get more money altogether.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> They absolutely are breaking the law, they do street hails without paying for a Medallion. 'Ehails' are street hails, they're done from the street in real time.


If they are licensed to operate they are not breaking existing law.



uberdriverfornow said:


> You cap it at 20% or even 25% and they will be forced to raise rates as a result to get more money altogether.


A business should operate as it sees fit, as long as no one's rights are violated.



Hackenstein said:


> Because it's predatory, there's no way to 'compete' with a company which can burn through 4 Billion/yr keeping prices artificially low. Nothing to do with actual regulated Capitalism.


Who are the TNC's hunting? Lowering the price to the consumer is a time honored tradition of gaining market share. It works. In Uber's case, it can't last. Investors will not stand for a negative return on their investment for long.

Amazon's retail section is losing money. Should we force them to raise prices so they make a larger profit? My business has lost money during some stretches. Should I have been forced to close? Should I have been forced to raise my prices? I hope not. I lowered my prices and got more work than I can handle. I didn't consult my subcontractors and I didn't ask permission from the government. I may have upset some of my competitors. Too bad for them. If they want to compete they must offer the customer what they want.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> When Lyft and Uber are not getting as much as they are used to then they will be forced to raise rates. They are currently getting about 33% on most fares and even much more in certain instances. You cap it at 20% or even 25% and they will be forced to raise rates as a result to get more money altogether.


Idk uber And Lyft have a lot of lawyers and I cant see any state court or city forcing how much someone can profit. However many of the counties I believe do control taxi prices from what I understand.

Also factor In there are thousands of drivers accepting what it is now


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> If they are licensed to operate they are not breaking existing law.
> 
> A business should operate as it sees fit, as long as no one's rights are violated.
> 
> ...


Six livery and cab drivers have committed suicide in six months. You can't merely demonize the Medallion system.

Uber has twisted every law and regulation, floods cities insane numbers of cars, and only exists because investors keep handing them Billions. Not that interested in analogies to other businesses.

Really, really not interested in the 'consumer only' non-argument.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Six livery and cab drivers have committed suicide in six months. You can't merely demonize the Medallion system.


Some poor financial decisions lead to poor personal decisions. A few years ago, I imagine typewriter manufacturers thought the world was going to end. A half dozen people with mental issues should not effect 60,000 drivers.



Hackenstein said:


> Uber has twisted every law and regulation, floods cities insane numbers of cars, and only exists because investors keep handing them Billions. Not that interested in analogies to other businesses.


Uber took advantage of some laws. Good for them. Protectionists laws are anti-productive. They shouldn't have existed in the first place.



Hackenstein said:


> Really, really not interested in the 'consumer only' non-argument.


Go ahead an put you head in the sand.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Some poor financial decisions lead to poor personal decisions. A few years ago, I imagine typewriter manufacturers thought the world was going to end. A half dozen people with mental issues should not effect 60,000 drivers.
> 
> Uber took advantage of some laws. Good for them. Protectionists laws are anti-productive. They shouldn't have existed in the first place.
> 
> Go ahead an put you head in the sand.


This is precisely the non-argument I expected.

The man who blew his brains out in front of City Hall was not a taxi driver. He was a professional livery driver who watched business dry up thanks to Uber's ridiculous lack of regulation and flooding the city with cars.

Uber was allowed to exploit loopholes which are directly responsible for six suicides. The city has finally stepped in and done what it should have done a few years ago. Keep blaming the victims.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> This is precisely the non-argument I expected.
> 
> The man who blew his brains out in front of City Hall was not a taxi driver. He was a professional livery driver who watched business dry up thanks to Uber's ridiculous lack of regulation and flooding the city with cars.
> 
> Uber was allowed to exploit loopholes which are directly responsible for six suicides. The City has finally stepped in and done what it should have done a few years ago. Keep blaming the victims.


Uber did not pull the trigger. Who do we blame for all the other suicides? You're attempting to plead to emotion instead of reason. How many thousands of Uber drivers do you want to make unemployed? How many riders to you want to overcharge?


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Uber did not pull the trigger. Who do we blame for all the other suicides? You're attempting to plead to emotion instead of reason.


I rest my case.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> I rest my case.


Thank you.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Six livery and cab drivers have committed suicide in six months. You can't merely demonize the Medallion system.
> 
> Uber has twisted every law and regulation, floods cities insane numbers of cars, and only exists because investors keep handing them Billions. Not that interested in analogies to other businesses.
> 
> Really, really not interested in the 'consumer only' non-argument.


And, back in 1920, the owner of the biggest and best manufacturer of buggy whips committed suicide too. He couldn't compete with those gas and steam powered buggies that don't need to beat a horse to pull them.
Good thing we didn't put Henry Ford outta business, eh?

CAPITALISM = FREEDOM = PROGRESS

PS; His competition, the ACME Buggy Whip Company of Cleveland Ohio went on to change their production so that they made upholstery for the seats that Henry Ford was putting in his gas powered buggies, and got RICH.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

UberBastid said:


> And, back in 1920, the owner of the biggest and best manufacturer of buggy whips committed suicide too. He couldn't compete with those gas and steam powered buggies that don't need to beat a horse to pull them.
> Good thing we didn't put Henry Ford outta business, eh?
> 
> CAPITALISM = FREEDOM = PROGRESS
> ...


How many times can you peeps go to the absurd 'buggy whips' well.

Uber's own drivers in NYC will tell you that flooding the city with 100,000 cars is in no way 'progress.'

It's called predatory exploitation. Henry Ford knew a few things about that, too. See: Auto industry labor strikes.


----------



## Wombat7 (Dec 23, 2016)

got a p said:


> This guy is such a joke lol. I bet his morning wood is orange from dreaming about Donald all night. Such faux outrage.


I'll wager that constantly thinking about my wood is what's cleared up your speaking in tongues when you write.

I do believe this is the first post that I've seen from you that is semi-coherent, used capital letters, punctuation and a reasonable imitation of sentence structure.

I'll bet that if you keep thinking about my wood, your communication skills will improve to a level where you just might be able to express an opinion based on actual facts in defense of whatever you believe in. If you could do that I would hold you in such esteem that I would be forced to stop thinking of you as merely Fixer1's sketchy little wingman.

What an achievement!


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

ofc im a russian operative! we're everywhere, at least mccarthiests like you believe in that hallucination. AAAA RUSSIANS DESTROYING OUR DEMOCRACY, THEYRE HIDING UNDER MY BED WAAAAAA!!!  TRUMP, RUSSIANS, HOMOPHOBES, ISLAMOPHOBES, ANNTISEMITES (oh wait libs are antisemetic now that theyre overlords gave them the ok on that one), MYSOGYNISTS!!!! 
truly deranged people like you are. how do you let yourself get that brainwashed? fear is my best guess..


----------



## Wombat7 (Dec 23, 2016)

got a p said:


> ofc im a russian operative! we're everywhere, at least mccarthiests like you believe in that hallucination. AAAA RUSSIANS DESTROYING OUR DEMOCRACY, THEYRE HIDING UNDER MY BED WAAAAAA!!!  TRUMP, RUSSIANS, HOMOPHOBES, ISLAMOPHOBES, ANNTISEMITES (oh wait libs are antisemetic now that theyre overlords gave them the ok on that one), MYSOGYNISTS!!!!
> truly deranged people like you are. how do you let yourself get that brainwashed? fear is my best guess..


Focus!!!

Concentrate, my poor little Albatross, it's your only hope.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> How many times can you peeps go to the absurd 'buggy whips' well.
> 
> Uber's own drivers in NYC will tell you that flooding the city with 100,000 cars is in no way 'progress.'
> .


But, it's being done by your progressive brethren socialists in San Francisco (the capital of The Union of American Socialist States). 
There is a lot of similarities between fascism and socialism. Both of them want to undercut the Constitution and ultimately destroy America.
I hate Uber too. But, I will defend their right to do business as long as they comply with the law. And until a judge says they go out of business because of their business practices, I think they should be allowed to conduct their business - to their ultimate profit (or loss).
That's freedom.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

UberBastid said:


> But, it's being done by your progressive brethren socialists in San Francisco (the capital of The Union of American Socialist States).
> There is a lot of similarities between fascism and socialism. Both of them want to undercut the Constitution and ultimately destroy America.
> I hate Uber too. But, I will defend their right to do business as long as they comply with the law. And until a judge says they go out of business because of their business practices, I think they should be allowed to conduct their business - to their ultimate profit (or loss).
> That's freedom.


[email protected] the socialism spiel.

They need to be regulated, they can't keep punting 3000 cars into NYC every single month. That was not 'freedom' it was insane.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> [email protected] the socialism spiel.
> 
> They need to be regulated, they can't keep punting 3000 cars into NYC every single month. That was not 'freedom' it was insane.


Yep, the socialism spiel. You've heard it before comrade, I know you have. Other freedom loving Americans have tried to talk sense to you before. And it has done no good.
IF the people want to give the power to the gov't to decide how many people work in a given profession, then we will give the gov't that power. That's the way it goes here. The people decide these things. 
You have the right to try to convince me, and discussion is ok with me (I have changed my mind on issues because of intelligent debate, and evidence); but there's a lot of us out here that are going to err on the side of freedom. 
I have seen the damage that communism does, and I'll choose the damage that capitalism does every time. 
Allow me the freedom to run a business the way I want to, and work for who I choose. I don't want you or any gov't bureaucrat to make those decisions for me.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

UberBastid said:


> Yep, the socialism spiel. You've heard it before comrade, I know you have. Other freedom loving Americans have tried to talk sense to you before. And it has done no good.
> IF the people want to give the power to the gov't to decide how many people work in a given profession, then we will give the gov't that power. That's the way it goes here. The people decide these things.
> You have the right to try to convince me, and discussion is ok with me (I have changed my mind on issues because of intelligent debate, and evidence); but there's a lot of us out here that are going to err on the side of freedom.
> I have seen the damage that communism does, and I'll choose the damage that capitalism does every time.
> Allow me the freedom to run a business the way I want to, and work for who I choose. I don't want you or any gov't bureaucrat to make those decisions for me.


Unregulated capitalism is pure exploitation. Uber drivers in NYC know this firsthand and were in favor of the cap.

Sorry you're pinning so much on a nonsensical spiel about 'socialism.'


----------



## Wombat7 (Dec 23, 2016)

bsliv said:


> Some poor financial decisions lead to poor personal decisions. A few years ago, I imagine typewriter manufacturers thought the world was going to end. A half dozen people with mental issues should not effect 60,000 drivers.
> 
> Uber took advantage of some laws. Good for them. Protectionists laws are anti-productive. They shouldn't have existed in the first place.
> 
> Go ahead an put you head in the sand.


"Protectionist" laws as you call them, are far from couterproductive. You're simply spouting dogma. There are plenty examples of "protectionist" doing exactly what they were supposed.

Capitalism without limits is self-destructive. It's happening now and you're refusing to recognize it.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Unregulated capitalism is pure exploitation.


Unregulated capitalism is pure economic freedom.



Hackenstein said:


> Uber drivers in NYC know this firsthand and were in favor of the cap.


Maybe the drivers should quit driving. Voluntary action is always preferable to forced action.



Hackenstein said:


> Sorry you're pinning so much on a nonsensical spiel about 'socialism.'


Its not nonsense. Everyone want economic freedom, except in the market they are involved in. Doctors don't want more doctors. Lawyers don't want more lawyers. Barbers don't want more barbers. Drivers don't want more drivers. Consumers are the opposite. Consumers want inexpensive prices which is only possible if there is a sufficient supply of the product.

Regulations create criminals (those that don't follow the regulations). I would expect more unlicensed cars on the street and they will ignore the rules.

Regulations cause unintended consequences. No one knows how the market will respond to the regulations but it does. Riders might be griping about poor service and high prices. Fewer taxes might be collected so the tax rate may be raised.

I have personal experience with protectionist regulations and unintended consequences. At one point those in my position thought there were too many of us. So a 4 year degree was required in addition to the 2 year internship (possibly unpaid), 30 hours of continuing education per year, and passing a tough test. The result was fewer in my profession. Our prices went up. Then our clients rebelled. Laws were created to reduce our need. Computer programs were created to replace us. The result is those in my profession have an average age of 55. Demand for our services dropped. Prices also dropped. The short term gain was wiped out.

Another case. It takes 25% less training to be a cop than a barber where I live. Was the public complaining about poor barbers? No. Barbers were complaining about too many barbers. The result? Less competition, higher barber prices, less innovation, and a stagnant industry.



Wombat7 said:


> Capitalism without limits is self-destructive.


Capitalism without limits is economic freedom. Economic freedom offers the highest chance of prosperity.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Unregulated capitalism is pure economic freedom.
> 
> Maybe the drivers should quit driving. Voluntary action is always preferable to forced action.
> 
> ...


What a sad, demented post.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> What a sad, demented post.


One can lead a horse to water ...


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> One can lead a horse to water ...


There's no logical argument that unregulated capitalism is 'freedom.'

It has never, ever lead to anything other than pure exploitation. Sorry to burst your bubble.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> There's no logical argument that unregulated capitalism is 'freedom.'
> 
> It has never, ever lead to anything other than pure exploitation. Sorry to burst your bubble.


Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at. State capitalism consists of one or more groups making use of the coercive apparatus of the government&#8230; for themselves by expropriating the production of others by force and violence.

I gave a couple of examples of government overreach into business affairs that produced less than optimum results. Care to share an example of freedom causing "pure exploitation"? I'll burst your bubble.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at. State capitalism consists of one or more groups making use of the coercive apparatus of the government&#8230; for themselves by expropriating the production of others by force and violence.
> 
> I gave a couple of examples of government overreach into business affairs that produced less than optimum results. Care to share an example of freedom causing "pure exploitation"? I'll burst your bubble.


'Free-market' Capitalism has always needed to be highly regulated to function.

Otherwise, it's merely pure destructive exploitation.

You know nothing about this subject.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> 'Free-market' Capitalism has always needed to be highly regulated to function.
> 
> Otherwise, it's merely pure destructive exploitation.
> 
> You know nothing about this subject.


This shows your ignorance. I have a degree in economics. I've worked in the field of economics for 25 years as a self employed consultant to the likes of Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase, Ditech, Citibank, and a very large number of lenders you probably never heard of. They pay me for my *opinion*.

Care to share your qualifications? You've at least read 'The Wealth of Nations', right?


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> This shows your ignorance. I have a degree in economics. I've worked in the field of economics for 25 years as a self employed consultant to the likes of Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase, Ditech, Citibank, and a very large number of lenders you probably never heard of. They pay me for my *opinion*.
> 
> Care to share your qualifications?


Wells Fargo, eh.

Case rested, again.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Wells Fargo, eh.
> 
> Case rested, again.


Can't answer questions?

Care to share an example of freedom causing "pure exploitation"?

What are your qualifications?


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Can't answer questions?
> 
> Care to share an example of freedom causing "pure exploitation"?
> 
> What are your qualifications?


Yes.

Uber drivers in NYC want the cap and $17.22 minimum wage because they are being exploited.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Yes.
> 
> Uber drivers in NYC want the cap and $17.22 minimum wage because they are being exploited.


And I want puppies and unicorns to walk the streets.

Care to share an example of freedom causing "pure exploitation"?

What are your qualifications?


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> And I want puppies and unicorns to walk the streets.
> 
> Care to share an example of freedom causing "pure exploitation"?
> 
> What are your qualifications?


Lol. So it's fine that they're being exploited. I bet you gave similar advice to Wells Fargo.

My qualifications are driving a cab and understanding the business.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Unbridled anything is not good.
Pure anything is not good.
Too much of a good thing is not a good thing.

Capitalism should be (and in the US it is) diluted with socialism. I am a capitalist; but I believe that a _society _should take care of those who can not care for themselves. We should see to the protection of those weakest amongst us. That is socialism - and I don't object to it used like that. But, please notice that I used the word "society" in that sentence. Not "government". Society should take care of the unborn, our veterans, disabled, etc. Government should defend the country and its borders. Insure interstate commerce by keeping up roads, airports etc. . But, mostly keep the hell outta our lives.

Capitalism, with a spoonful of socialism is a good mixture. Middle of the road is where America used to live. Now, it's just extremes. And, the difference between extremes is small. They both want to see the destruction of the Constitution of the United States. BLM and KKK have more in common than they want to admit. They both believe in the superiority of the color of their own skin; and that 'the other guy' is the enemy.

I know one thing for sure: Things will either get better; or they'll get worse. Good news is, its up to us.

It just seems awful coincidental to me that the USA seems to get _just _the right person at _exactly _the right time. George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Franklin D Roosevelt ... and yes, even Winston Churchill. They came along _JUST _in time, or at the right time to make the most change and save our bacon. I remember looking to the heavens about six years ago and saying "Ronnie, where are you gipper? We need you buddy." I don't think I was the only one. Because our prayers have been answered - again. I hope.

I hope that what's happening now, politically, is good for the USA.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Lol. So it's fine that they're being exploited. I bet you gave similar advice to Wells Fargo.
> 
> My qualifications are driving a cab and understanding the business.


And you claimed I had lack of knowledge on economics. Seems we now know the truth. If I need to know how to shift to drive from park, I'll ask you. Capping the number of TNC drivers hurts TNC drivers and potential TNC drivers by artificially limiting there options. More importantly, capping the number of TNC drivers hurts riders by lowering the quality of service and raising prices. Capping the number of TNC drivers may help cab drivers by reducing their competition. Competition is good. Competition spurs innovation. Competition creates lower prices to consumers. The consumer is king.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> And you claimed I had lack of knowledge on economics. Seems we now know the truth. If I need to know how to shift to drive from park, I'll ask you. Capping the number of TNC drivers hurts TNC drivers and potential TNC drivers by artificially limiting there options. More importantly, capping the number of TNC drivers hurts riders by lowering the quality of service and raising prices. Capping the number of TNC drivers may help cab drivers by reducing their competition. Competition is good. Competition spurs innovation. Competition creates lower prices to consumers. The consumer is king.


You have no clue about the exploitative nature of unregulated capitalism, or simply don't care.

Capping the number of TNC's curbs the blatant exploitation of drivers. In your world, that fact is completely irrelevant. Prices should not be based on exploitation.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> You have no clue about the exploitative nature of unregulated capitalism, or simply don't care.
> 
> Capping the number of TNC's curbs the blatant exploitation of drivers. In your world, that fact is completely irrelevant. Prices should not be based on exploitation.


Prices aren't set based on exploitation. Prices are set based on supply and demand.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Prices aren't set based on exploitation. Prices are set based on supply and demand.


No they're not, in this instance. Uber drivers spend 40% of their time driving around empty. As another 10,000 cars are added to the road.

Just stop.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> No they're not, in this instance. Uber drivers spend 40% of their time driving around empty. As another 10,000 cars are added to the road.
> 
> Just stop.


I won't stop until you stop with the incorrect information.

If there wasn't demand for drivers, drivers wouldn't get paid. If drivers don't get paid, there won't be drivers. Obviously, the demand is there. Hence, drivers are there and getting paid.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> I won't stop until you stop with the incorrect information.
> 
> If there wasn't demand for drivers, drivers wouldn't get paid. If drivers don't get paid, there won't be drivers. Obviously, the demand is there. Hence, drivers are there and getting paid.


Drivers are mostly clueless immigrants who get suckered into leasing a car with upfront guarantees. Check the board for any number of threads where they either suffer through the loan until they can escape, or default and ruin their credit. These cars change hands a dozen times.

None of this is based on supply and demand.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Drivers are mostly clueless immigrants who get suckered into leasing a car with upfront guarantees. Check the board for any number of threads where they either suffer through the loan until they can escape, or default and ruin their credit. These cars change hands a dozen times.
> 
> None of this is based on supply and demand.


Prices are set via supply and demand. Poor decisions led to bad leases.

Please don't suggest that businesses that make poor decisions should be bailed out.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Prices are set via supply and demand. Poor decisions led to bad leases.
> 
> Please don't suggest that businesses that make poor decisions should be bailed out.


Nope. Prices are set by Uber burning through VC.

The cap was based on studies which found drivers spend 40% of the time riding around empty and average sub-minimum wage pay.

The fact that half of your spiel is based on blaming drivers for being suckered by Uber is all anyone needs to know.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

If there aren't enough drivers, Uber would raise the rate to drivers. If there are too many drivers, Uber should lower the rate to drivers. See how that works?

If drivers are happy with sub-minimum wage, good for them. If they are not happy, stop driving! There appears to be a supply that will take their place.

How much is setting one's own schedule worth? How much is working for as long as one wants worth? How much is working 1 day a month with no retribution worth? How much is not having to suck up to a supervisor worth? If one adds these values to the drivers net income, I'd bet it exceeds a minimum wage. If not, stop driving and go flip burgers or mow lawns or collect aluminum cans.

Should we have an intelligence test before one becomes a driver?

Supply and demand sets prices, including the price of labor.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> If there aren't enough drivers, Uber would raise the rate to drivers. If there are too many drivers, Uber should lower the rate to drivers. See how that works?
> 
> If drivers are happy with sub-minimum wage, good for them. If they are not happy, stop driving! There appears to be a supply that will take their place.
> 
> ...


There are far too many drivers as per the studies. Most make below minimum wage, but are trapped in car leases.

Please find a board for people who are brainwashed by the idea that unregulated capitalism is a good thing.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> There are far too many drivers as per the studies. Most make below minimum wage, but are trapped in car leases.
> 
> Please find a board for people who are brainwashed by the idea that unregulated capitalism is a good thing.


Too many drivers isn't determined by a study, its determined by the market and the demand for the drivers. Leasing a car, especially for rideshare, is not a good economic decision. People making poor decisions is not my problem. If I can capitalize on their poor decision, even better.

Go find a socialist forum. See how that works?


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Too many drivers isn't determined by a study, its determined by the market and the demand for the drivers. Leasing a car, especially for rideshare, is not a good economic decision. People making poor decisions is not my problem. If I can capitalize on their poor decision, even better.
> 
> Go find a socialist forum. See how that works?


Lol so you're all in on exploitation.

Hence the reason the city had to act and cap numbers.

Love the socialism spiel, it means you lost the argument.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Kodyhead said:


> Idk uber And Lyft have a lot of lawyers and I cant see any state court or city forcing how much someone can profit. However many of the counties I believe do control taxi prices from what I understand.
> 
> Also factor In there are thousands of drivers accepting what it is now


If you cap the amount of new drivers Uber and Lyft can on board and cap the percentage of care they can take then Uber and Lyft will be forced to raise rates.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Lol so you're all in on exploitation.


Wrong again. I don't see exploitation. I see a working business model. I see lots of drivers accepting the terms. By definition, accepting the terms is acceptance of the terms.



Hackenstein said:


> Hence the reason the city had to act and cap numbers.


You are attempting to change the reason for capping the numbers. I thought it was congestion.



Hackenstein said:


> Love the socialism spiel, it means you lost the argument.


And how does your "brainwashed" spiel apply?

When government determines how to run a business, it isn't a free market.
*
Fascism* is a form of radical authoritarian control, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce.

Would you prefer me to call you a fascist?

You can call me a lover of liberty. "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." T. Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd President of the United States. Feel free (for now) to post your favorite Marxist's quote.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Wrong again. I don't see exploitation. I see a working business model. I see lots of drivers accepting the terms. By definition, accepting the terms is acceptance of the terms.
> 
> You are attempting to change the reason for capping the numbers. I thought it was congestion.
> 
> ...


The cluelessness of everything you post is off the charts.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

_*Fascism* is a form of radical authoritarian control, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce._

and

*Socialism *is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

So, please explain the difference between Hitler (Fascism) and Stalin (Socialism) to the people that they starve, imprison and subjugate. To the Jews that were shoved into ovens, and the Russians that starved on state run farms ... no difference. Just a complete loss of freedom.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

UberBastid said:


> _*Fascism* is a form of radical authoritarian control, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce._
> 
> and
> 
> ...


Unregulated Capitalism produces the same results.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

UberBastid said:


> _*Fascism* is a form of radical authoritarian control, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce._
> 
> and
> 
> ...


They both have control of business and industry dictated by the government.

Capping the number of drivers is control of business and industry dictated by the government.



Hackenstein said:


> Unregulated Capitalism produces the same results.


I've asked for an example but haven't received an answer.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> They both have control of business and industry dictated by the government.
> 
> Capping the number of drivers is control of business and industry dictated by the government.
> 
> I've asked for an example but haven't received an answer.


You received an answer and ignored it.

Billion dollar corporations have near total control of government. Your advocacy for no regulations is comedy.


----------



## Uberspaceshipdriver (Aug 17, 2018)

tcaud said:


> This really sucks. Now it's clear all the cities are going this rideshare capping deal. The taxi companies and unions win... charismatic union insiders get to keep their jobs and the rest of us are screwed.
> 
> Not hardly. Hate to say it, but it'll look good for GOP in the cities in 2020.


Just stop, son, that sort of talk only works with the ignorant who do not use the internet.

Does it bother you to have a cap? They won't fire unless they want to pay unemployment, they will let the bad seeds get deactivated and be stopped from hiring more, who do you think suffers from massive hiring? Uber that needs a car in every corner or the driver who can't get a ride?

Shill somewhere else.


----------



## Wombat7 (Dec 23, 2016)

Uberspaceshipdriver said:


> Just stop, son, that sort of talk only works with the ignorant who do not use the internet.
> 
> Does it bother you to have a cap? They won't fire unless they want to pay unemployment, they will let the bad seeds get deactivated and be stopped from hiring more, who do you think suffers from massive hiring? Uber that needs a car in every corner or the driver who can't get a ride?
> 
> Shill somewhere else.


I like that.

Natural selection. Best and easiest way to cap it.



bsliv said:


> And I want puppies and unicorns to walk the streets.
> 
> Care to share an example of freedom causing "pure exploitation"?
> 
> What are your qualifications?


Slavery. Especially 18th and 19th century American slavery.



UberBastid said:


> Unbridled anything is not good.
> Pure anything is not good.
> Too much of a good thing is not a good thing.
> 
> ...


Not bad. I find myself agreeing with most of what you wrote. But not all.

Society, as per your loose definition, is both not able and at this point, not prepared to meet those vital needs. Decades of right-weinie anti-poor brainwashing keeps that from happening. I'll touch on it some more in the next couple of days; visitors in town.



UberBastid said:


> And, back in 1920, the owner of the biggest and best manufacturer of buggy whips committed suicide too. He couldn't compete with those gas and steam powered buggies that don't need to beat a horse to pull them.
> Good thing we didn't put Henry Ford outta business, eh?
> 
> CAPITALISM = FREEDOM = PROGRESS
> ...





UberBastid said:


> And, back in 1920, the owner of the biggest and best manufacturer of buggy whips committed suicide too. He couldn't compete with those gas and steam powered buggies that don't need to beat a horse to pull them.
> Good thing we didn't put Henry Ford outta business, eh?
> 
> CAPITALISM = FREEDOM = PROGRESS
> ...


" Capitalism=Freedom=Progress"

Well, the 1st two parts of your equation can be reasonably considered to be accurate.

The "Progress" part is full-blown, bat-poop crazy.

The average American is much worse off then he was in 1970 by almost any measure and you call that progress?



UberBastid said:


> But, it's being done by your progressive brethren socialists in San Francisco (the capital of The Union of American Socialist States).
> There is a lot of similarities between fascism and socialism. Both of them want to undercut the Constitution and ultimately destroy America.
> I hate Uber too. But, I will defend their right to do business as long as they comply with the law. And until a judge says they go out of business because of their business practices, I think they should be allowed to conduct their business - to their ultimate profit (or loss).
> That's freedom.


You wouldn't know facism or socialism if they kicked you in the face.

Your primary point of reference is right-weinie brainwashing. This has created a Pavlovian response to anything that would cost money due to the right-weinie created false premise that the money isn't there.

Where do you think that Uber and other modern start-ups get their funding? How do you think that it's okay nowadays to blow billions of dollars in losses and face no repercussions? Did this ever happen before 1970? Or even 1990?


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> You received an answer and ignored it.
> 
> Billion dollar corporations have near total control of government. Your advocacy for no regulations is comedy.


And why do corporations involve themselves in government? Because government is picking the winners and losers in business. Better have good lobbyists if regulation is involved. Or get government out of business and business would have no incentive to coerce government.



Wombat7 said:


> Slavery. Especially 18th and 19th century American slavery.


Slavery is not an example of freedom. Freedom is limited by the equal rights of others.



Wombat7 said:


> The average American is much worse off then he was in 1970 by almost any measure and you call that progress?


My personal communication device puts Star Trek's communicator to shame. I have a 55" TV that can show hundreds of channels. I have a car that is quick, handles well and gets 40 mpg. I can correct errors on messages boards at the speed of light that can be seen around the world. I can watch my house when I'm away with a network of cameras. The cold war is over, for the most part. Black holes are real. These things were unheard of in'70.



Wombat7 said:


> do you think that it's okay nowadays to blow billions of dollars


As long as its not my money, go ahead and blow it. Who pays for it? The investors. Who should pay for it? The investors. The investors thought they'd get a decent return. Its a risk they took. They shouldn't expect to be bailed out. They should try to get their investment working. Who benefits? Mostly the millions of riders but drivers too. Driving may be low wage but it beats the alternative. If it didn't beat the alternative, drivers should quit driving and chose the alternative now.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> And why do corporations involve themselves in government? Because government is picking the winners and losers in business. Better have good lobbyists if regulation is involved. Or get government out of business and business would have no incentive to coerce government.
> 
> Slavery is not an example of freedom. Freedom is limited by the equal rights of others.
> 
> ...


Corporations 'involve themselves' in government to buy their way around all regulation because their only concern is profit.

Hence, unregulated Capitalism is merely pure exploitation.

Why this needs to be explained to you 100x is a mystery.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Corporations 'involve themselves' in government to buy their way around all regulation because their only concern is profit.
> 
> Hence, unregulated Capitalism is merely pure exploitation.
> 
> Why this needs to be explained to you 100x is a mystery.


I try to type slow for you.

If there are no regulations there will be no lobbyists hired by businesses. If there are no regulations business will ignore government. Do you understand this fact?

You complain business is running government. I complain government is running business. If government got out of business we'd both be happy.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> I try to type slow for you.
> 
> If there are no regulations there will be no lobbyists hired by businesses. If there are no regulations business will ignore government. Do you understand this fact?
> 
> You complain business is running government. I complain government is running business. If government got out of business we'd both be happy.


Pre-Haas Act, we had thousands of desperate drivers competing for far too few fares, making nothing in cars they couldn't afford to repair.

We're back there now.

What fixed it post-Depression was a necessary limit by government (regulation). The exact same regulation is needed now and was just signed into law.

Your posts are insane no offense.


----------



## Trump Economics (Jul 29, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> When Lyft and Uber are not getting as much as they are used to then they will be forced to raise rates. They are currently getting about 33% on most fares and even much more in certain instances. You cap it at 20% or even 25% and they will be forced to raise rates as a result to get more money altogether.


If Uber and Lyft would go back to normal Surging and keep rates at like $1.50, more drivers would stay.

Less turnover means having to spend less on recruitment, etc. I mean, who knows how many referral bonuses (etc.) are never paid out because their algorithms stop giving rides just as the deadline approaches, but it's a start.

If each company simply invested in their drivers (paying them an extra $2 for their commute to a call, etc.) they could still walk away with a 40% comission - but it would be consistent comission.

Right now, passengers don't even know if they'll get picked up. Cancellation fee here, driver-starts-ride-without-passenger-in-the-car there. There's so many fraudulent complaints on social media every... single... day.

You can't class-action your way out of fraud. If you steal $150 from a passenger, charge them for a ride they never took, you can't negotiate a settlement - you actually have to pay all of that money back, plus interest.

There's so many things wrong with this picture, and if you don't retain your drivers, that picture will never come into focus.

Uber and Lyft have a good estimate of demand by now, and they have billions of rides under their belts.

*Some people will look at a cap as a bad thing, but look beyond your emotions. Uber and Lyft have been capping drivers for years. *

When you are not matched with the closest passenger, that's a cap.

When a tip alters your calls for the next hour in order to bring your earnings in line (back down) with everyone else, that's a cap.

When you are unable to charge what you want for your services, that's a cap.

When there's too many drivers on the road and demand is no high, your algorithm gets a cap - newer drivers get calls first (gotta make things fun and profitable for them so we can condition the side-hustle).

So many different great points of view on this thread. None of them right, none of them wrong.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Haas Act


The Haas Act was promoted by taxi cab fleet owners to reduce the competition. Competition is good (unless its you competing).


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> The Haas Act was promoted by taxi cab fleet owners to reduce the competition. Competition is good (unless its you competing).


No it wasn't. NYC was a disaster pre-Haas Act.

You are the single most ignorant poster I have ever seen.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> No it wasn't. NYC was a disaster pre-Haas Act.


It sure was. Cab companies couldn't make money due to the cut rate competition.



Hackenstein said:


> You are the single most ignorant poster I have ever seen.


Delude yourself but don't try to delude others.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> It sure was. Cab companies couldn't make money due to the cut rate competition.
> 
> Delude yourself but don't try to delude others.


NO ONE could make any money. It was the definition of a race to the bottom.

You are the single most ignorant poster I have ever seen.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> NO ONE could make any money. It was the definition of a race to the bottom.


Partly true. The typical cabbie was making far less than they were. But so was the rest of the country. There were 10's of thousands of drivers that had no choice but to try to hustle rides. They were in a desperate situation. The Haas act put many of them out of work. If they had better choices than driving for peanuts they would have taken the better choice. Those unfortunate ones really had no money. There are always unintended consequences and sometime those consequences are not good.

The Haas Act eventually led to high costs to consumers and poor service to some areas.

History does repeat itself.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Partly true. The typical cabbie was making far less than they were. But so was the rest of the country. There were 10's of thousands of drivers that had no choice but to try to hustle rides. They were in a desperate situation. The Haas act put many of them out of work. If they had better choices than driving for peanuts they would have taken the better choice. Those unfortunate ones really had no money. There are always unintended consequences and sometime those consequences are not good.
> 
> The Haas Act eventually led to high costs to consumers and poor service to some areas.
> 
> History does repeat itself.


Good lord. The Haas Act stopped anyone with a car flooding the streets as a taxi. No regulation was bad for everyone, _including _customers.

NYC taxis are not at all expensive compared to other taxi fleets.

Your pages of nonsense are advocacy for a literal race to the bottom in the name of serving the consumer.

Have fun with that.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Hackenstein said:


> Good lord. The Haas Act stopped anyone with a car flooding the streets as a taxi. No regulation was bad for everyone, _including _customers.
> 
> NYC taxis are not at all expensive compared to other taxi fleets.
> 
> ...


I honestly think you have some type of learning disability. Reviewing your posts, you're all over the place. First NYC needed a cap because of suicides. Then because of exploitation. Then congestion. Throw some crony capitalism in. Then Uber is illegal. I've had enough of your rambling. Your personal attacks put it over the edge. I will not be responding any further.

Its obviously some of us need a nanny. Others of us are revolted by the idea of being dictated to. I believe clear thinkers will view this thread and come to a conclusion.


----------



## Hackenstein (Dec 16, 2014)

bsliv said:


> I honestly think you have some type of learning disability. Reviewing your posts, you're all over the place. First NYC needed a cap because of suicides. Then because of exploitation. Then congestion. Throw some crony capitalism in. Then Uber is illegal. I've had enough of your rambling. Your personal attacks put it over the edge. I will not be responding any further.
> 
> Its obviously some of us need a nanny. Others of us are revolted by the idea of being dictated to. I believe clear thinkers will view this thread and come to a conclusion.


NYC needs a cap because without one you have massive oversaturation and a race to the bottom.

The lack of a cap does indeed cause tremendous congestion.

Bye.


----------

