# Seattle proposing rules to benefit the driver



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

Uber and Lyft rides could become more expensive in Seattle. The city is considering setting a minimum fare per ride and other regulations in an effort to ensure drivers are compensated fairly.

The Seattle City Council is expected to introduce a resolution this week to start the process toward enacting new regulations that could change how on-demand transportation companies operate in the region. The city will explore a minimum base fare of $2.40 per ride for Uber and Lyft and a minimum compensation for all independent contractors, which includes drivers for transportation networks.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...JDAB&usg=AOvVaw3Fl3gAIqU07hClf7LoE9j4&ampcf=1

I think I want to move to Seattle!


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Just another union forcing meaningful changes on the company for the hard worker. Good job.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

One issue to note, the changes they are proposing do NOT require joining a union.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Mista T said:


> One issue to note, the changes they are proposing do NOT require joining a union.


You missed the Teamsters reference ?



Mista T said:


> One issue to note, the changes they are proposing do NOT require joining a union.


And in this case, the teamsters are providing a service while not even getting paid for it. Normally you got the cry babies all upset that the union is collectively bargaining but they actually have to pay for that service through union dues, this time they aren't even getting any dues for helping to craft this regulation that helps drivers.


----------



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

Mista T said:


> I think I want to move to Seattle!


Go. Join the new influx the ants who will rush to compete for fewer riders who quit using the service when fares are jacked up. Seattle Liberals are famous for killing jobs.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Uber's Guber said:


> Go. Join the new influx the ants who will rush to compete for fewer riders who quit using the service when fares are jacked up. Seattle Liberals are famous for killing jobs.


The price of rides is below market equlibrium. They can be raised 100 percent and there will be no change in ridership. And they will still be 2 time below the cost of a cab.

The only reason rides are so cheap is because they are being subsidized by the 4 billion dollars each year investors keep pumping into Uber to keep it afloat or the price of rides would have been raised years ago, in fact they never woulda went down in the first place.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

It's a tough call to be sure. Compete here, with too many drivers, for $3 per ride, or compete there, with too many drivers, for $6 per ride.

Good thing I don't plan on doing it much longer. Gonna get that $$ while I can...


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Mista T said:


> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...JDAB&usg=AOvVaw3Fl3gAIqU07hClf7LoE9j4&ampcf=1
> 
> I think I want to move to Seattle!


THE NATION IS WATCHING

Humming " Eyes of the World"- Grateful Dead.



uberdriverfornow said:


> Just another union forcing meaningful changes on the company for the hard worker. Good job.


Robots will want a Union.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> Robots will want a Union.


Electronic Lives Matter


----------



## JimKE (Oct 28, 2016)

Uber's Guber said:


> Go. Join the new influx the ants who will rush to compete for fewer riders who quit using the service when fares are jacked up. Seattle Liberals are famous for killing jobs.


Seattle is the home of some pretty big companies: Microsoft, Boeing...

Oh wait -- didn't Boeing move their HQ from Seattle to Chicago?

Oh well, at least the manufacturing jobs are still in Seattle. Um...except for the thousands of NEW manufacturing jobs they located in Charleston, SC -- INSTEAD of Seattle.

Amazon's HQ is in Seattle, too -- but for some bizarre reason, Amazon is going to create a brand new *50,000 job* HQ2 somewhere else. (Hopefully hometown boy Jeff will bring that home to Miami!)

Why not just add on to the Seattle HQ. Oh yeah. That whole money thing again, just like with Boeing.



tohunt4me said:


> Robots will want a Union.





Mista T said:


> Electronic Lives Matter


Racists!


----------



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

uberdriverfornow said:


> The price of rides is below market equlibrium. They can be raised 100 percent and there will be no change in ridership.


If Uber thought they could jack up the price without affecting ride quanity, they would do it in a heartbeat, and drivers wouldn't even get a part of it.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Uber's Guber said:


> If Uber thought they could jack up the price without affecting ride quanity, they would do it in a heartbeat, and drivers wouldn't even get a part of it.


They already are, with the upfront pricing scheme, but this only works on pool trips. It's still a flat rate on X rides.

When they discount the pool trips to bait people into doing pool trips they are praying they get other people along the way. If they don't, they lose money. If they do, they may break even or perhaps come out ahead.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

the last umpteen price hikes have done nothing for the driver, every single price cut has effected the driver...


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Imagine if you were a baker and the city forced a minimum price of $5 per loaf. Or you tutor after school and they forced a $50/hr minimum fee. Haircuts are now $25.

Are rideshare drivers too small to fail? Will the city force a maximum price too? Will the city create a flat rate for all? 

Governments should not be managing private businesses, other than, perhaps, health and safety aspects. Let the businesses succeed or fail based on their own decisions. Any government big enough to give you what you want is big enough to take from you what they want.

Seattle was already one of the most lucrative markets. They are going to flood the streets with empty cars.


----------



## dkhoser (Mar 21, 2018)

poor people don't have chauffeurs & private drivers for a reason cabs are & never will be meant to be taken daily if you dont have $15 for a ride you need to walk, bike, or bus it.

$10 was normal gas $ for friends & familys 20+ years ago

thats the minimum it costs to move & transport 100-500 pounds in a 1000+ pound vehicle & it will never be cheaper than that

drivers need to gross least $10 per trip


----------



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

Uber is keeping ride pricing as low as possible in an effort to choke out its competition.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

bsliv said:


> Seattle was already one of the most lucrative markets. They are going to flood the streets with empty cars.


When Seattle raised minimum wage to $15 the cries were enormous. Starbucks will have to raise prices to $19/cup, businesses will lay off people by the hundreds, etc.

That has not happened.


----------



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

Mista T said:


> When Seattle raised minimum wage to $15 the cries were enormous. Starbucks will have to raise prices to $19/cup, businesses will lay off people by the hundreds, etc. That has not happened.


Restaurants I frequent have already replaced wait staff with computer touch screens, and my bank replaced some counter clerks with sophisticated ATMs. The effects are only beginning, and level-entry jobs are definitely disappearing.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

Check the NYC thread, forced price increases have been put in the budget there. Should be interesting to see how that develops, if any of us are still driving a year from now.

------

I foresee 4 possible outcomes if the Seattle thing goes thru:

1. Uber raises prices. Taxis are happier, the price disparity isn't as bad. Fewer pax taking rides, especially short ones. Bus system survives a few more years in Seattle.

2. Uber keeps prices the same. Same # of rides, drivers get paid more, Uber eats the cost increase. Fewer incentives and surges.

3. Uber lobbies the State to enact legislation, overrides the city. Business as usual.

4. U/L pull out of Seattle. Waymo, Juno, Via, and others pounce on the opportunity. Amazon gets in the game? Rideshare Austin expands? Drivers out of income for 1 month, then back to driving around paxhole for a diff provider. Driver pay is higher by law.


----------



## mugupo (Feb 8, 2017)

Uber never care about the driver, all they want is a lot of driver and don't care about their customer service or driving experience.


----------



## Martin Kodiak (Jan 3, 2018)

Uber's Guber said:


> Go. Join the new influx the ants who will rush to compete for fewer riders who quit using the service when fares are jacked up. Seattle Liberals are famous for killing jobs.


You say that while

Seattle is the fastest growing economy in America. Our labor shortage is the highest in America outside Hawaii

Your Koop Aid is weak



Uber's Guber said:


> Restaurants I frequent have already replaced wait staff with computer touch screens, and my bank replaced some counter clerks with sophisticated ATMs. The effects are only beginning, and level-entry jobs are definitely disappearing.


Entry level jobs in the Electricians union abound and they cannot hire fast enough. Great paying jobs with union benefits that after a decade if your a good learner and organized can start THIER own company and make $250,000 plus a year.

Everything runs on electricity and everyone need electricians.


----------



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

Martin Kodiak said:


> You say that while Seattle is the fastest growing economy in America. Our labor shortage is the highest in America outside Hawaii. Your Koop Aid is weak.


You might want to update your news feed. The fastest growing economies are in Texas, Mississippi, Indiana, Wyoming, N. Dakota, & S. Dakota. 
The fastest sector growing is Seattle is the homeless population, thanks to Washington state's regressive tax system.
Scurry off now, your poo-pax ping has summons you.


----------



## Martin Kodiak (Jan 3, 2018)

Uber's Guber said:


> You might want to update your news feed. The fastest growing economies are in Texas, Mississippi, Indiana, Wyoming, N. Dakota, & S. Dakota.
> The fastest sector growing is Seattle is the homeless population, thanks to Washington state's regressive tax system.
> Scurry off now, your poo-pax ping has summons you.


It is evident that you fully believe the lies you are taught to believe. My news feed is reality.


----------



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

Martin Kodiak said:


> My news feed is reality.


Rachel Maddow and The Young Turks are fake news.


----------



## Martin Kodiak (Jan 3, 2018)

Uber's Guber said:


> Rachel Maddow and The Young Turks are fake news.





Uber's Guber said:


> Rachel Maddow and The Young Turks are fake news.


Oddly I have no idea what that means, but clearly you do. CIP.

Missy and Gizzy approved


----------



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

Uber's Guber said:


> Rachel Maddow and The Young Turks are fake news.





Martin Kodiak said:


> Oddly I have no idea what that means, but clearly you do.


Yes, I clearly know what fake news looks like, and you admit to having no idea. Your honesty is noted.


----------



## Karen Stein (Nov 5, 2016)

I love it.

Cars are invented. Some clever souls find they can make money selling rides. Government is dragged into the mess, making rules "for the public good" and to keep things "fair." What could possibly go wrong?

Ayn Rand called it spot on: complete collapse of the taxi industry. No one gets served, drivers living in cars they rent from a handful of connected/protected "medallion" owners.

Along comes a clever guy who finds a way to provide the market with what the customer wants. He makes money, drivers make money, everyone is happy.

Except, of course, a few lunatics who think repeating a failure will lead to success - and a few greedyvidiots who think it makes sense to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.


----------



## Eugene73 (Jun 29, 2017)

rideshare prices have been driven down way too cheap. thats why we are getting the scum of the earth taking rides with us. higher prices and fewer rides is A-OK with me. eventually Uber and Lyft investors will call for an end to their experiment with low prices because it is a hyoooge failure for everyone.


----------



## Trebor (Apr 22, 2015)

Uber's Guber said:


> If Uber thought they could jack up the price without affecting ride quanity, they would do it in a heartbeat, and drivers wouldn't even get a part of it.


They do via upfront pricing.


----------



## Aerodrifting (Aug 13, 2017)

It's both sad and angry for me to read all the responses in this thread, Nothing but pessimistics and brainwashed sheeps, Maybe you deserve to be bottom feeders.

You all whined about "minimun fare is too low" "Uber should increase minimum fare to at least $5 for the drivers" on this forum, Now the change is coming you whine even more.



Karen Stein said:


> Along comes a clever guy who finds a way to provide the market with what the customer wants. He makes money, drivers make money, everyone is happy.
> 
> Except, of course, a few lunatics who think repeating a failure will lead to success - and a few greedyvidiots who think it makes sense to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.


If you want to be sarcastic, You need to sound smarter. "Everyone is happy?" Not the drivers from what I see on this forum or respectable studies, That 4% retention rate also seems to disagree with you.

Uber is a goose laying golden eggs? Since when golden egg is equivalent to billions of loss per year?


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help." 

Potentially twice the number of drivers as there are now fighting over half the number of rides. Or will the government attempt to limit the number of drivers too? Perhaps they'll issue some type of certificate to those eligible to drive. One rate for all riders. Sounds familiar. Sounds like a step backwards. 

I believe in private contracts. I'm an adult. I don't need a big brother to make sure I run my business profitably. Government, instead of open markets, setting prices creates inefficiencies and reduces overall profit. 

If this law passess, some drivers will see an increase in income. More will see a decrease in income due to the increased competition. Uber will see a decrease in income due to a decrease of riders and a huge increase in their cost. Riders should be the most upset with a doubling of their cost. A good number of those riders will go back to whatever they were doing before rideshare. The total revenue generated under the medallion system is a small fraction of the revenue generated from rideshare. The biggest winner would be the tax collector.

The people who run Uber are also adults. If they thought doubling the fare charged to riders would not negatively effect their bottom line, they'd do it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Karen Stein (Nov 5, 2016)

Yea, sure. I'll believe that when Travis K gets food stamps.

I compare my Uber earnings to my last year as a licensed electrician, I'm not doing bad. When I compare Uber to what a certain retail management job offered, I'm way ahead. When I compare to my long-ago taxi driving, Uber is light-years ahead.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Uber's Guber said:


> If Uber thought they could jack up the price without affecting ride quanity, they would do it in a heartbeat, and drivers wouldn't even get a part of it.


Just Like " EMPLOYEES".

Time to rehear that case.


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

Mista T said:


> 3. Uber lobbies the State to enact legislation, overrides the city. Business as usual.


Literally what Uber did in TX last year. They spent millions on it. More than it would have cost to get every rideshare driver in TX a taxi license. After managing to ram that law through. They went back into Austin with a vengeance; making sure none of the upstart companies that took over ever made it out.{for example: a rideshare company that only took $1 from drivers[no matter the distance/time] & booking fee from pax}

Don't under estimate Uber.


----------



## Aerodrifting (Aug 13, 2017)

bsliv said:


> "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
> 
> Potentially twice the number of drivers as there are now fighting over half the number of rides. Or will the government attempt to limit the number of drivers too? Perhaps they'll issue some type of certificate to those eligible to drive. One rate for all riders. Sounds familiar. Sounds like a step backwards.
> 
> ...


Oh NO, big bad government is going to interfere with the "free market" and run everything into the ground like communist Soviet Union.

Last time I checked, China's economy is soaring past Japan and US, So much for your "free market". And since when the market is free when it's controlled by that 2%?


----------



## KD_LA (Aug 16, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> Robots will want a Union.









Martin Kodiak said:


> Everything runs on electricity and everyone need electricians.


Not ones with this name!!


----------



## UBERPROcolorado (Jul 16, 2017)

Mista T said:


> Uber and Lyft rides could become more expensive in Seattle. The city is considering setting a minimum fare per ride and other regulations in an effort to ensure drivers are compensated fairly.
> 
> The Seattle City Council is expected to introduce a resolution this week to start the process toward enacting new regulations that could change how on-demand transportation companies operate in the region. The city will explore a minimum base fare of $2.40 per ride for Uber and Lyft and a minimum compensation for all independent contractors, which includes drivers for transportation networks.
> 
> ...


Lol. Don't think for a moment that a minimum fare is going to help drivers. And Uber will not up the cost to the riders.

Uber and most likely Lyft will simply offset the extra cost, via reducing per mile & per minute rates paid the drivers. In other words, short trips might pay a bit more to the drivers, but less on the normal and trips.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

KD_LA said:


> Not ones with this name!!
> 
> View attachment 219597


They will " Import" them.
They will live 18 to a 2 bedroom house and eat fish head soup.
All of the money will leave the country.

Besides what is spent on group hookers and beer.

Neighborhood dogs will " disappear" for Sunday dinner.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Aerodrifting said:


> Oh NO, big bad government is going to interfere with the "free market" and run everything into the ground like communist Soviet Union.
> 
> Last time I checked, China's economy is soaring past Japan and US, So much for your "free market". And since when the market is free when it's controlled by that 2%?


Every citizen should distrust their government. That is the only organization that has a monopoly on the initiation of force. They can remove one's assets. They can remove one's liberty. No private institution has that power. The USSR was a failure. So is Cuba. So is Venezuela. Socialism does not work.

You're right, China is different. Do you know how China maintains control of its subjects? Its not pretty. But the Chinese have bought into it. They believe the state is greater than the individual. If individuals must die for the state to progress, so be it. That should not be the case in the USA. Here, individuals are superior to the state. We have rules to protect the individual. We have rules to limit the power of the state.

A free market is one not controlled by the state. A free market has competition, even if its only between 2% of the population. Free markets encourage competition. Regulated markets stifle competition. Competition is good.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Uber's Guber said:


> If Uber thought they could jack up the price without affecting ride quanity, they would do it in a heartbeat, and drivers wouldn't even get a part of it.


Uber did that last year with upfront pricing.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Just another union forcing meaningful changes on the company for the hard worker. Good job.


Back in the early 70s, I was a swamper ( helper ) for a few moving companies, and this was the era when minimum wage was about $2 per hour ( and a one bedroom apartment was $125 per month ). Okay, I worked for a non union shop, and the pay was $3 an hour, and then I joined the union and worked for the larger, union shops, like Bekins, etc. The pay? a little over $6 an hour, which, in 1972 was a great wage. After union dues, which weren't that much, I still came out way ahead. you seem to think that if history gives us a corrupt union or two, all of them are bad, or the concept is bad. I'll disagree.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Mista T said:


> The city will explore a minimum base fare of $2.40 per ride for Uber and Lyft and a minimum compensation for all independent contractors, which includes drivers for transportation networks.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...JDAB&usg=AOvVaw3Fl3gAIqU07hClf7LoE9j4&ampcf=1
> 
> I think I want to move to Seattle!


A $2.40 minimum??!! This makes no sense at all. How can drivers make any money with such an outrageously LOW price? Is that a typo?


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BG0QqUMIMDAF&usg=AOvVaw06cksYOqkI6jh7sFi3fTTp


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Every citizen should distrust their government. That is the only organization that has a monopoly on the initiation of force. The can remove one's assets. The can remove one's liberty.


and so, what is the point here? Anarchy? Some level of government is necessary, and they'll always have that power. But, in America, no one person could do it, it would require help of a lot of people in government, the military, the FBI, etc., the vast majority of whom believe in the constitution, so your fear mongering aside, I don't think it's really an issue.



> No private institution has that power. The USSR was a failure. So is Cuba. So is Venezuela. Socialism does not work.


Totalitarianism doesn't work. Comparing Cuba, USSR, to China, Denmark, France, Canada, etc., is an egregious false comparison.

The truth is that nations with a blend of capitalism ( for wants ) and socialism ( for needs ) work just fine, noting that no system is not without it's problems. I make the point that capitalism without socialism, or socialism without capitalism, is the thing that doens't work --- in other words , "totalitarianism" (fascism on the right, communism on the left ) is what doesn't work. But leave it to republicans to dish up the strawman.



> You're right, China is different. Do you know how China maintains control of its subjects? Its not pretty. But the Chinese have bought into it. They believe the state is greater than the individual. If individuals must die for the state to progress, so be it. That should not be the case in the USA. Here, individuals are superior to the state. We have rules to protect the individual. We have rules to limit the power of the state.
> 
> A free market is one not controlled by the state. A free market has competition, even if its only between 2% of the population. Free markets encourage competition. Regulated markets stifle competition. Competition is good.


China is embracing capitalism, and they are now becoming a much wealthier country because of it, but China has other problems, such as human rights issues, exploitation of labor ( though, according to someone I interviewed who had a factory there, told me the new president is clamping down on sweat shop labor and corruption in government, so that's a good news item ), etc.

All things big should be scrutinized. But, wage/income disparity between top and bottom in government is about 7 to 1, in the corporate world is is 300 to 1. I hear repubs complain that government jobs are "overpaid" ( basic jobs getting $15 an hour where the free market equivalent pays about $10 or so per hour in CA, less elsewhere ) but they completely ignore that at the top, corporations pay 10, 20, times more and beyond compared to government. And, let's see you file a FOIA request with a corporation. And then there are pensions by free market, okay, you got Enron and how many more cases like that will i find, if I do a search?

Here is a list of the 10 worst pension failures that resulted claims filed to Pension Benefit Gauranty Corp

1. United Airlines (2005)

2. Delphi (2009)

3. Bethlehem Steel (2003)

4. US Airways (2003)

5. LTV Steel (2002, 2003, 2004)

6. Delta Air Lines (2006)

7. National Steel (2003)

8. Pan American Air (1991, 1992)

9. Trans World Airlines (2001)

10. Weirton Steel (2004)

Top 10 Total

$27 billion total claims

543,875 number of vested participants,

$49,933 average claim per individual filed to PBGC. And yes, it's a big bad goose-steppin' commie org.

Jeez you guys are a trip.

I dont think the government is the boogyman repubs would have us believe. And no, that doesn't mean I should
swallow everything they dish out, either, just sayin'. I favor the model of Canada, France, the Netherlands, capitalism for wants, socialism for needs, for neither works well without the other. Totalitarism is the real culprit.

An absolute free market left unregulated and entirely to its own devices, will devour itself.

A totalitarian state controlled country will wither and die, or experience a revolution, which will inevitably replace itself
with a corrupt fascist state ( USSR to it's current state ).

Where doth the pendulum rest? It rests dead center.


----------



## hulksmash (Apr 26, 2016)

bsliv said:


> Imagine if you were a baker and the city forced a minimum price of $5 per loaf. Or you tutor after school and they forced a $50/hr minimum fee. Haircuts are now $25.
> 
> Are rideshare drivers too small to fail? Will the city force a maximum price too? Will the city create a flat rate for all?
> 
> ...


I don't agree with government stepping in but when a companies decision affects the public at large, they have to step in. Look at what Uber's pricing strategy has done

Drivers working way too many hours just to be able to make a decent living, causing oversaturation of drivers, drivers camping out at business parking lots, sleeping in cars, camping out at airport lots, rates that attract only bottom of the barrel unqualified drivers, etc.

Drivers unable to maintain their cars and still have money left over

Substandard quality of service due to criminally low rates that best barely break you even and make it a losing bet to make long pickups or long trips


----------



## Mole (Mar 9, 2017)

This is a good thing reduce the number of drivers and raise the pay and uber might even make money for a change.


----------



## Aerodrifting (Aug 13, 2017)

bsliv said:


> Every citizen should distrust their government. That is the only organization that has a monopoly on the initiation of force. The can remove one's assets. The can remove one's liberty. No private institution has that power. The USSR was a failure. So is Cuba. So is Venezuela. Socialism does not work.
> 
> You're right, China is different. Do you know how China maintains control of its subjects? Its not pretty. But the Chinese have bought into it. They believe the state is greater than the individual. If individuals must die for the state to progress, so be it. That should not be the case in the USA. Here, individuals are superior to the state. We have rules to protect the individual. We have rules to limit the power of the state.
> 
> A free market is one not controlled by the state. A free market has competition, even if its only between 2% of the population. Free markets encourage competition. Regulated markets stifle competition. Competition is good.


"We have rules to protect the individual. We have rules to limit the power of the state. "

All is just a facade for the rich to control the government, In turn controlling the people. The rich people control all the propaganda in this country, From TV stations to newspaper to internet. And what does propaganda do? Propaganda serves the same purpose in every corner of the world, Whether it's a communist country or a capitalist country, It brainwashes the average folks, Manipulate your thoughts to do its bidding.

The government in US is just a tool. If ANYONE running the government dares to cross the rich people, Hurting their profits, Actually fighting for the benefit of the 98%, You will see the propaganda all turning against the government, Feeding you bs such as "free market" "socialist government" , Turning everyone against the government. Soon the rich people will be victorious by having the government submit, changing its official while the 98% cheering for their "democracy" and "power over the government". Exactly whose victory is that? Candidates like Ron Paul and Sanders will never get elected because they are the arch enemy of the rich people, No doubt the rich will use all the propaganda to demonize them to make everyone think they are evil socialists. But have you actually listened to their voice to find out what they really want?

Sometimes you need to see through the facade and look at reality: From 2000-2018, I'd say inflation is about 100%? Everything's price pretty much doubled in the past 18 years, Did worker's wage double? Minimum wages stay about the same across the state, Where did all the extra money go if workers are getting paid the same? Go back 30 more years, The middle class could have a decent living by just having the male work 40 hours a week in a factory, Now we have both couple working 50 hours and still struggle to pay the bills. If you don't see something is wrong, You are blind.

This is a capitalist society, Money = Power and guess who has the most money? Sometime I pity you brainwashed fools, But when I see you cheering for your enemy who rob you and suck you dry, I think you guys actually deserve it.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> and so, what is the point here?


The point is to not give additional power to an organization that shouldn't be trusted.



Oscar Levant said:


> the vast majority of whom believe in the constitution


Our constitution has lost much of its power by government exceeding their limits and the citizens or courts not correcting them. Think Patriot Act.



Oscar Levant said:


> fascism on the right, communism on the left


Left and right are only two dimensions of a multi dimensional spectrum. Which category does a freedom lover belong in? I believe in free immigration. I believe in no drug control by the government. I believe in no gun control by the government. I believe in no price control by the government. I believe in no people control by the government. By the way, I am not a republican. GW Bush was a terrible president. Trump is slightly better but still terrible.



Oscar Levant said:


> a blend of capitalism ( for wants ) and socialism ( for needs ) work just fine


My needs are different from my neighbor's needs. Who decides what one needs? Its a slippery slope that should not be navigated by governments, especially one who promotes freedom.



Oscar Levant said:


> 10 worst pension failures


Why are private businesses with no experience with managing pensions, managing pensions? Why do businesses provide health care options? Neither should be on the table. During World War II, the federal government was wary of post-war inflation. The administration saw the terrible devastation hyperinflation wreaked on post-World War I Germany and they were determined to hold it at bay through wage and price controls which they instituted during the war. In reaction to the wage controls, many labor groups planned to go on strike en masse. In order to avert the strike, in a concession to the labor groups, the War Labor Board exempted employer-paid health benefits from wage controls and income tax.

This historical accident created a tax advantage that drove enormous demand for employer-provided health insurance plans over the previously more common individual health insurance. Employers received a 100% tax deduction while the benefits employees received were exempt from federal, state, and city taxation.

Get the government out of private business.



Oscar Levant said:


> Where doth the pendulum rest?


It should rest at the point marked FREEDOM for the individual and tight LIMITS for governments. Some smart people around 1776 thought the same.


----------



## Aerodrifting (Aug 13, 2017)

bsliv said:


> The point is to not give additional power to an organization that shouldn't be trusted.


Your first mistake, Listening to people who you can not trust to tell you what to think and what to do.

Your second mistake, You actually think you have power.

Your third mistake, You actually think you have the ability to give power to the government.

And something totally unrelated but might worth think about: If you didn't trust the government and you think you have the power and there is democracy, How did that government get elected the first place?


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Aerodrifting said:


> "We have rules to protect the individual. We have rules to limit the power of the state. "
> 
> All is just a facade for the rich to control the government, In turn controlling the people. The rich people control all the propaganda in this country, From TV stations to newspaper to internet. And what does propaganda do? Propaganda serves the same purpose in every corner of the world, Whether it's a communist country or a capitalist country, It brainwashes the average folks, Manipulate your thoughts to do its bidding.
> 
> ...


There is no denying that propaganda is a strong tool. It is used by governments and businesses alike. The USA's government wants you to buy produces made in the USA. Ford wants you to buy Fords. Its up to the individual to decipher the bs. Most of us realize when Chevy says they make the best cars have an ulterior motive. Some of us realize when government says its for our own good that there is an ulterior motive. Every one and every thing should be questioned. Don't take anyone's word as truth, even the president of the country.

The solution? Stop government propaganda first. Free education, including college, is a favorite socialist position. What happens to the private institutions? They wither. Good bye ivy league. Want to make college more affordable? Get government out. Stop student loans and grants. Then watch universities compete for students via pricing.


----------



## Kodyhead (May 26, 2015)

Mista T said:


> One issue to note, the changes they are proposing do NOT require joining a union.


Damn I was looking forward to coffee, donuts sitting around a table all day with possible a helmet on


----------



## Aerodrifting (Aug 13, 2017)

bsliv said:


> There is no denying that propaganda is a strong tool. It is used by governments and businesses alike. The USA's government wants you to buy produces made in the USA. Ford wants you to buy Fords. Its up to the individual to decipher the bs. Most of us realize when Chevy says they make the best cars have an ulterior motive. Some of us realize when government says its for our own good that there is an ulterior motive. Every one and every thing should be questioned. Don't take anyone's word as truth, even the president of the country.
> 
> The solution? Stop government propaganda first. Free education, including college, is a favorite socialist position. What happens to the private institutions? They wither. Good bye ivy league. Want to make college more affordable? Get government out. Stop student loans and grants. Then watch universities compete for students via pricing.


I like free education as much as the next person, Except nothing is free. Who is going to pay for your free education? Last time I checked the budget is in the red. And who says free college is going to make all our problems go away? I have seen plenty of kids with a 4 year degree without a job.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Aerodrifting said:


> Your first mistake, Listening to people who you can not trust to tell you what to think and what to do.


Huh? I listen to everyone. I trust no one. I definitely don't fall in line with any major political party.



Aerodrifting said:


> Your second mistake, You actually think you have power.


I think I have a lot less power than a citizen a few years ago. Citizens as a group have enormous power. Our constitution was framed to instill fear into government. Its been perverted to instill fear into citizens (subjects?).



Aerodrifting said:


> Your third mistake, You actually think you have the ability to give power to the government.


Citizens definitely have the power to concede their rights. Rights are powerful. Giving up the power is not smart. "Cold, dead fingers" comes to mind. Our rights should be cherished, exercised, and protected. Giving up rights, especially as a knee jerk reaction spurred by people with a still developing brain seems nuts to me.



Aerodrifting said:


> And something totally unrelated but might worth think about: If you didn't trust the government and you think you have the power and there is democracy, How did that government get elected the first place?


Propaganda in action. How does a second rate actor get elected governor of the most populated state in the country? Hollywood is great at propaganda. Its their business. I'm surprised that they haven't done Stalin's life story, telling how great he was for the USSR.

There are millions of people who think Kim Jong-un is a great man. There are million of others who view him directly opposite. Same man, same actions, 180° degree difference of opinion. Who's right? Depends a lot on where you live and who's propaganda you choose to believe. I believe power corrupts. I believe that absolute power absolutely corrupts. Human rights don't exist in North Korea. I don't blame them for wanting a strong national defense, though.


----------



## KD_LA (Aug 16, 2017)

And speaking of electricians, what do you get when you cross an electrician with a barber?
...
...
...
_Shorted-out_ back and sides


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

hulksmash said:


> I don't agree with government stepping in but when a companies decision affects the public at large, they have to step in. Look at what Uber's pricing strategy has done
> 
> Drivers working way too many hours just to be able to make a decent living, causing oversaturation of drivers, drivers camping out at business parking lots, sleeping in cars, camping out at airport lots, rates that attract only bottom of the barrel unqualified drivers, etc.
> 
> ...


You say all that like you are FORCED to drive Uber. If the pay is too low for you, and the conditions not acceptable, then "quit."
You should then believe government should have stepped in at the inception of rideshare, since it definitely affected the public at large. It affected the lives of everyone in the transportation industry, from drivers to owners, and affected the general public with increased traffic. They didn't, so here we are.
Fact is, things change, and you have to change with it. Otherwise I'd still be driving a taxi and making more money. That stopped working for me, so now I drive Uber. If driver rates fall, and Uber stops working out for me, I'll do something else. My responsibility, not government.


----------



## MercDuke (Nov 18, 2017)

Wow minimum fare of $2.40? Why even bother........ its still just peanuts....


----------



## Selectfusion (Nov 14, 2017)

MercDuke said:


> Wow minimum fare of $2.40? Why even bother........ its still just peanuts....


I'm with merc, what is y'alls minimum? You're lobbying for a minimum of 2.40? Y'all got it bad there I guess lol


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

Uber's Guber said:


> If Uber thought they could jack up the price without affecting ride quanity, they would do it in a heartbeat, and drivers wouldn't even get a part of it.


They already have jacked up the prices, it's called Upfront Pricing.

Of course with the UP, the drivers get stiffed out of any of the additional revenue.



Uber's Guber said:


> Restaurants I frequent have already replaced wait staff with computer touch screens, and my bank replaced some counter clerks with sophisticated ATMs. The effects are only beginning, and level-entry jobs are definitely disappearing.


The minimum wage is a whopping $7.25 here in Virginia, and touch screens, etc have popped up here.



Uber's Guber said:


> Go. Join the new influx the ants who will rush to compete for fewer riders who quit using the service when fares are jacked up. Seattle Liberals are famous for killing jobs.


 Uber jacked up fares with upfront pricing, and ridership is higher than ever.

Perpetually high rates of Third World immigration is responsible for the perpetually high rates of ants signing up for Uber/Lyft.


----------



## Uber_Dubler (Apr 4, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> The price of rides is below market equlibrium. They can be raised 100 percent and there will be no change in ridership. And they will still be 2 time below the cost of a cab.
> 
> The only reason rides are so cheap is because they are being subsidized by the 4 billion dollars each year investors keep pumping into Uber to keep it afloat or the price of rides would have been raised years ago, in fact they never woulda went down in the first place.


Ahh huhhh? That's what local governments and unions used to tell citizens until Uber came along. How did the "below market equlibrium" theory work out for taxi drivers an unions once ridesharing started?


----------



## flynn408 (Dec 9, 2017)

Uber's Guber said:


> Go. Join the new influx the ants who will rush to compete for fewer riders who quit using the service when fares are jacked up. Seattle Liberals are famous for killing jobs.


Odd considering Seattle has long been one of the hottest job markets. I still get hit up by companies there, I just would not love living there, great city though.


----------



## UberCheese (Sep 3, 2017)

Move to the low pay south. it's wonderful, extreme poverty, flying cockroaches, homelessness.

You can work all day 7 days a week and have nothing to show for it. I think you'd love it there.



Uber's Guber said:


> Go. Join the new influx the ants who will rush to compete for fewer riders who quit using the service when fares are jacked up. Seattle Liberals are famous for killing jobs.


It's really not that. Many Americans are willfully stupid



Oscar Levant said:


> Back in the early 70s, I was a swamper ( helper ) for a few moving companies, and this was the era when minimum wage was about $2 per hour ( and a one bedroom apartment was $125 per month ). Okay, I worked for a non union shop, and the pay was $3 an hour, and then I joined the union and worked for the larger, union shops, like Bekins, etc. The pay? a little over $6 an hour, which, in 1972 was a great wage. After union dues, which weren't that much, I still came out way ahead. you seem to think that if history gives us a corrupt union or two, all of them are bad, or the concept is bad. I'll disagree.


----------



## hulksmash (Apr 26, 2016)

Taxi2Uber said:


> You say all that like you are FORCED to drive Uber. If the pay is too low for you, and the conditions not acceptable, then "quit."
> You should then believe government should have stepped in at the inception of rideshare, since it definitely affected the public at large. It affected the lives of everyone in the transportation industry, from drivers to owners, and affected the general public with increased traffic. They didn't, so here we are.
> Fact is, things change, and you have to change with it. Otherwise I'd still be driving a taxi and making more money. That stopped working for me, so now I drive Uber. If driver rates fall, and Uber stops working out for me, I'll do something else. My responsibility, not government.


I do this gig part time and I've been able to last only because I can afford to only work when demand and fares are higher and stay out when it isn't. Fact is despite what Uber says they can't rely solely on people like me who only drive when demand is highest. They need full timers to cover the times when part timers won't.

As much as you hear people saying only drive when it surges, if everyone actually did that the system would be broken to where no one could get a ride unless a bunch of other people also need rides at the same times (the condition that causes surges and halfway decent income) When you have a system that requires you to reject, rather than accept, most rides in order to make a profit, it makes for a broken system that pisses off everyone. I will make more if I accept most Select/Premier/Lux requests (most are profitable) but also need to reject most uberx requests(unless it surges) in order to turn a profit, since only a smal percentage of X rides are profitable.

Uber drew in a lot of customers with ridiculously low fares, but refused to raise the rates to allow the business model to remain sustainable for both Uber and drivers alike. They've made people dependent on Uber with those low rates, and these same people would pay more for better quality of service, and now they are stranded at bar close or for airport runs because smart drivers don't want to drive them for the low fares they are offered for them.

Just raise the rates so the service is reliable all the time, and most of Uber's problems go away.


----------



## freeFromUber (Mar 1, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> Back in the early 70s, I was a swamper ( helper ) for a few moving companies, and this was the era when minimum wage was about $2 per hour ( and a one bedroom apartment was $125 per month ). Okay, I worked for a non union shop, and the pay was $3 an hour, and then I joined the union and worked for the larger, union shops, like Bekins, etc. The pay? a little over $6 an hour, which, in 1972 was a great wage. After union dues, which weren't that much, I still came out way ahead. you seem to think that if history gives us a corrupt union or two, all of them are bad, or the concept is bad. I'll disagree.


The concept of unions IS bad. It may have been a little more necessary in the 1960's or 70's....but not today. If you are willing to work hard and do the right thing, you don't need a union to take a sizable chunk of your pay to do your bidding for you on occasion.



Oscar Levant said:


> But, in America, no one person could do it, it would require help of a lot of people in government, the military, the FBI, etc


Do you mean like the FBI and the DOJ and the FISA court did in the last election? There was a LOT of people involved in that travesty.



Oscar Levant said:


> China is embracing capitalism, and they are now becoming a much wealthier country because of it


Excellent point, they are embracing CAPITALISM not socialism.

p.s. Trump at 51% approval rating. (Obummer was at 46% approval on this date in his presidency).


----------



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

Karen Stein said:


> Yea, sure. I'll believe that when Travis K gets food stamps.


Please ask Travis what those food stamps taste like. I'm curious if the answer will be "chicken."


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

freeFromUber said:


> The concept of unions IS bad. It may have been a little more necessary in the 1960's or 70's....but not today. If you are willing to work hard and do the right thing, you don't need a union to take a sizable chunk of your pay to do your bidding for you on occasion.


Yes, you do. Unless you really think corporations are always going to do the right thing.


----------



## freeFromUber (Mar 1, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Yes, you do. Unless you really think corporations are always going to do the right thing.


Corporations seldom do the right thing, you just have to have the balls to stand up for what is right, and do your best...then they take you seriously, and you won't need a union. You fight for yourself, not for everyone that doesn't want to work hard, but still wants a promotion and a raise. By the way, most large corporations are not unionized.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

I want to see a return to Uber clearly showing the gross paid by the rider and Uber's take as well as a return to a flat 25% cut.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

MercDuke said:


> Wow minimum fare of $2.40? Why even bother........ its still just peanuts....


I can't believe it's real!! Can we get some Seattle drivers to comment?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

freeFromUber said:


> Corporations seldom do the right thing, you just have to have the balls to stand up for what is right, and do your best...then they take you seriously, and you won't need a union. You fight for yourself, not for everyone that doesn't want to work hard, but still wants a promotion and a raise. By the way, most large corporations are not unionized.


Nobody is doing anything on their own so quit lying, UberShill.


----------



## freeFromUber (Mar 1, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Nobody is doing anything on their own so quit lying, UberShill.


Barack Obama, ("you didn't build that"), is that you?


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

hulksmash said:


> I do this gig part time and I've been able to last only because I can afford to only work when demand and fares are higher and stay out when it isn't. Fact is despite what Uber says they can't rely solely on people like me who only drive when demand is highest. They need full timers to cover the times when part timers won't.
> 
> As much as you hear people saying only drive when it surges, if everyone actually did that the system would be broken to where no one could get a ride unless a bunch of other people also need rides at the same times (the condition that causes surges and halfway decent income) When you have a system that requires you to reject, rather than accept, most rides in order to make a profit, it makes for a broken system that pisses off everyone. I will make more if I accept most Select/Premier/Lux requests (most are profitable) but also need to reject most uberx requests(unless it surges) in order to turn a profit, since only a smal percentage of X rides are profitable.
> 
> ...


So you want Uber to raise rates, yet you admit that you currently drive despite all the things you complain about.
"oversaturation of drivers" -including YOU.
"rates that attract only bottom of the barrel unqualified drivers"-also YOU apparently.
"Substandard quality of service due to criminally low rates"-Well, YOU again, I guess.

So why should Uber raise rates?
You say, "so the service is reliable all the time." Well, it is, right now, at these low rates. There are ants everywhere, all the time, and more signing up everyday.
You say, people are dependent on Uber and would otherwise be stranded at bars, and miss flights. People were able to do these things long before Uber was around. People will adapt and find a way. Attracted to Uber, not dependent.
You say, "people would pay more for better quality of service". Sure. But not everybody wants better service and are willing to pay less for mediocre service.

"Just raise the rates". Sounds good on the surface. Who wouldn't want that? Be prepared, though, for a greater influx and retention of drivers. Couple that with a loss of customers, and you're still not making much. 
And all the other stuff you said has nothing to do with your original point of wanting government intervention.


----------



## dman0617 (Mar 13, 2018)

Uber's Guber said:


> Go. Join the new influx the ants who will rush to compete for fewer riders who quit using the service when fares are jacked up. Seattle Liberals are famous for killing jobs.


Well uber is already a dead gig so I wont be too upset with them about this one lol.



Taxi2Uber said:


> So you want Uber to raise rates, yet you admit that you currently drive despite all the things you complain about.
> "oversaturation of drivers" -including YOU.
> "rates that attract only bottom of the barrel unqualified drivers"-also YOU apparently.
> "Substandard quality of service due to criminally low rates"-Well, YOU again, I guess.
> ...


True, but it would be 3 rides for $10 instead of 10 rides for $3. I'll take that any day. Hell even if I gross a little less I will be happy. In fact, I often go days without driving just because I don't like the low surge on that particular day.


freeFromUber said:


> Corporations seldom do the right thing, you just have to have the balls to stand up for what is right, and do your best...then they take you seriously, and you won't need a union. You fight for yourself, not for everyone that doesn't want to work hard, but still wants a promotion and a raise. By the way, most large corporations are not unionized.


Exactly! Rule of thumb people will walk over you for as much as you let them- especially in this profit driven economy.


----------



## Snowtop (Nov 11, 2014)

bsliv said:


> Left and right are only two dimensions of a multi dimensional spectrum. Which category does a freedom lover belong in? I believe in free immigration. I believe in no drug control by the government. I believe in no gun control by the government. I believe in no price control by the government. I believe in no people control by the government. By the way, I am not a republican. GW Bush was a terrible president. Trump is slightly better but still terrible.


I believe that is called being a Libertarian.


----------



## melusine3 (Jun 20, 2016)

Mista T said:


> Uber and Lyft rides could become more expensive in Seattle. The city is considering setting a minimum fare per ride and other regulations in an effort to ensure drivers are compensated fairly.
> 
> The Seattle City Council is expected to introduce a resolution this week to start the process toward enacting new regulations that could change how on-demand transportation companies operate in the region. The city will explore a minimum base fare of $2.40 per ride for Uber and Lyft and a minimum compensation for all independent contractors, which includes drivers for transportation networks.
> 
> ...


Well, God bless Seattle!



uberdriverfornow said:


> The price of rides is below market equlibrium. They can be raised 100 percent and there will be no change in ridership. And they will still be 2 time below the cost of a cab.
> 
> The only reason rides are so cheap is because they are being subsidized by the 4 billion dollars each year investors keep pumping into Uber to keep it afloat or the price of rides would have been raised years ago, in fact they never woulda went down in the first place.


It might lose some should-be bus riders. Good riddance.



Mista T said:


> Check the NYC thread, forced price increases have been put in the budget there. Should be interesting to see how that develops, if any of us are still driving a year from now.
> 
> ------
> 
> ...


Fewer... no, make that NO incentives in my town now already and surges are rare.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber (Jan 5, 2017)

I don't see anything wrong with this.

So they raise the fares and lose clients, perhaps a few drivers will have to quit to cope with the new number of riders since uber will not keep a healthy ecosystem of drivers but instead flood the streets so that we have to participate in colosseum death matches for a fare.

So they lose clients, it affects them not us, cheap fares increasing driver profit is a fable, it only benefits uber.

Let them lose the bus riders and **** them.


----------



## itsablackmarket (May 12, 2015)

There should be a nationwide rule that the minimum mileage rate should be 3x the standard mileage deduction. Min fare should be $8. Companies should compete over quality of service to get ahead, not how ridiculously cheap they can be, to the point where drivers suffer immensely.


----------



## Elmo Burrito (Feb 3, 2017)

hulksmash said:


> I do this gig part time and I've been able to last only because I can afford to only work when demand and fares are higher and stay out when it isn't. Fact is despite what Uber says they can't rely solely on people like me who only drive when demand is highest. They need full timers to cover the times when part timers won't.
> 
> As much as you hear people saying only drive when it surges, if everyone actually did that the system would be broken to where no one could get a ride unless a bunch of other people also need rides at the same times (the condition that causes surges and halfway decent income) When you have a system that requires you to reject, rather than accept, most rides in order to make a profit, it makes for a broken system that pisses off everyone. I will make more if I accept most Select/Premier/Lux requests (most are profitable) but also need to reject most uberx requests(unless it surges) in order to turn a profit, since only a smal percentage of X rides are profitable.
> 
> ...


 You're right about full timers but, "raising rates ?"
As long as Uber has "delusions of grandeur" and make no mistake, maintaining their top dog status in the Rideshare gig economy is their top priority (not us drivers full time or other) they'll never raise the rates.

Blockchain peer to peer rideshare is the only way drivers can force their hand. Because, once drivers figure out they can cut the middle man (Uber/Lyft/Juno) and leave enmasse, going over to a Blockchain method the big dogs will have to raise rates in order to compete for quality full-time drivers.


----------



## hulksmash (Apr 26, 2016)

Taxi2Uber said:


> So you want Uber to raise rates, yet you admit that you currently drive despite all the things you complain about.
> "oversaturation of drivers" -including YOU.
> "rates that attract only bottom of the barrel unqualified drivers"-also YOU apparently.
> "Substandard quality of service due to criminally low rates"-Well, YOU again, I guess.
> ...


Don't get it twisted. You won't catch me driving around for peanuts. I drive because I am a surge only driver, but it also means rejecting many ride requests until I get one to my liking. Uber doesn't want just drivers like me. They need people that will give everyone a ride, is personable, has a nice car, and don't spend time strategizing on how to work the system. Those types of drivers do it until they realize the shitty pay isn't worth all the BS.

The only ones left are mathematically challenged ants and drivers who make the system work for them, even at the expense of Uber and some pax.

You say Uber is already reliable? Ask all the pax who can't get a ride out of LAX or get base fares cancelled cause Uber refuses to let it surge despite no one in the queue. They're all happy when they do finally get a ride even if the have to pay 2x. All the BS you hear about surge gaming and drivers cancelling is all Uber's doing for refusing to implement a decent fare. Only ones giving cheap rides are the new drivers who don't know any better who eventually quit or become surge only drivers, or the mathematically challenged ones who don't realize they're don't make anything until they can't maintain their car, or have nothing left after expenses.

Will you lose some riders? Sure, but it will just keep out the riff raff (pool riders)

Sometimes you need government intervention to do the right thing when the company refuses to do so voluntarily. I wouldn't mind them forcing stricter background, mandatory rideshare insurance. You'd then cut down on all the incidents of Uber drivers raping pax, driving high, etc. This would weed out all the riff raff in the driver side and force rates to increase, just to about 2x what they are now, nothing pax aren't used to paying during surge. Maybe then I'll have a 90% acceptance like they want me to


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

Mista T said:


> Uber and Lyft rides could become more expensive in Seattle. The city is considering setting a minimum fare per ride and other regulations in an effort to ensure drivers are compensated fairly.
> 
> The Seattle City Council is expected to introduce a resolution this week to start the process toward enacting new regulations that could change how on-demand transportation companies operate in the region. The city will explore a minimum base fare of $2.40 per ride for Uber and Lyft and a minimum compensation for all independent contractors, which includes drivers for transportation networks.
> 
> ...


The City of Austin did something similar in 2016 (though their 1st step was to require fingerprints, and there was talk of increasing rates) ... and after Uber & Lyft left Austin for a year ... we actually got 14 new companies who offered drivers better rates (more than double what U/L paid $2/mi for their X equivalent). But, Uber eventually pushed back lobbying "bribing" Texas legislators until a Texas TNC Law was passed restricting cities from imposing any changes to the state law. Ditto #3 of Mista T

But good luck Seattle ... and even though the replacement companies paid more than Uber or Lyft; frankly, I made more with Uber at lower rates than with the new companies - possibly since travelers often took a taxi from the airport instead of downloading the "rideshare app of the day" since the lack of Uber/Lyft was confusing to many pax. Juggling 2 or 3 rideshare apps is much more doable than juggling 14 ... total PITA. We have 3 rideshare services now and while RideAustin pays drivers much more than Uber or Lyft - they don't have nearly as many rides as either Uber or Lyft.


----------



## touberornottouber (Aug 12, 2016)

I'd be happy with a law mandating:

1. The rider is shown the amount of the fare which is going to the driver
2. The company must compensate the driver at least 50% of the total fare paid.

I think these are reasonable. I find it extremely distasteful that at times these companies are taking over 50% of the fare paid. I further find it sad that the rider often thinks we are getting a majority of the fare. My own sister recently took a ride with Uber and stated that she paid $7.50 to go one mile. I had to inform her that in Orlando the driver probably got little more than $2.50 for that ride.

Any6way I applaud Seattle for at least making some positive change.


----------



## Ziggy (Feb 27, 2015)

hulksmash said:


> Uber drew in a lot of customers with ridiculously low fares, but refused to raise the rates to allow the business model to remain sustainable for both Uber and drivers alike. They've made people dependent on Uber with those low rates, and these same people would pay more for better quality of service, and now they are stranded at bar close or for airport runs because smart drivers don't want to drive them for the low fares they are offered for them.
> 
> Just raise the rates so the service is reliable all the time, and most of Uber's problems go away.


Actually, the rates in 2014 and 1st quarter 2015 were quite reasonable and fair to both drivers and pax. It's only after Uber started lowering the fares in 2015 with ridiculous campaigns like "lower fares means more rides which will make more money" that driving became a zero sum game that prompted drivers to reject non-surge trips. And at least in Austin we saw X lose more than $1/mile in less than a year. Take the fares back to 2014 rates and the eco system will sort itself out


----------



## jester121 (Sep 6, 2016)

touberornottouber said:


> 2. The company must compensate the driver at least 50% of the total fare paid.


At least 50%?

Way to draw a line in the sand....

What does "the company" do to deserve anywhere north of 25%, let alone 50%?


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

jester121 said:


> At least 50%?
> 
> Way to draw a line in the sand....
> 
> What does "the company" do to deserve anywhere north of 25%, let alone 50%?


They started the company. They run the company. They advertised the company. They recruited drivers. They maintain a list of eligible drivers. They pay insurance. They offer contracts that drivers are free to accept or reject.


----------



## hulksmash (Apr 26, 2016)

bsliv said:


> They started the company. They run the company. They advertised the company. They recruited drivers. They maintain a list of eligible drivers. They pay insurance. They offer contracts that drivers are free to accept or reject.


50% for not even owning the primary and most expensive tool required to perform the job is ludicrous. Taxi drivers keep 100% of the fare and just pay the rental and maybe a small fee for dispatch, credit card processing, etc. I think 25% just for providing insurance and maintaining an app should be sufficient.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

hulksmash said:


> 50% for not even owning the primary and most expensive tool required to perform the job is ludicrous. Taxi drivers keep 100% of the fare and just pay the rental and maybe a small fee for dispatch, credit card processing, etc. I think 25% just for providing insurance and maintaining an app should be sufficient.


I think Uber should be able to make a profit by only keeping 10% of the fare. But its not my call to make. I don't run the company. If I did run the company, I'd attempt to lower my costs as low as possible while still keeping an adequate supply of drivers.


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

hulksmash said:


> Don't get it twisted. You won't catch me driving around for peanuts. I drive because I am a surge only driver, but it also means rejecting many ride requests until I get one to my liking. Uber doesn't want just drivers like me. They need people that will give everyone a ride, is personable, has a nice car, and don't spend time strategizing on how to work the system. Those types of drivers do it until they realize the shitty pay isn't worth all the BS.
> 
> The only ones left are mathematically challenged ants and drivers who make the system work for them, even at the expense of Uber and some pax.
> 
> ...


Well, in my market, Uber is already reliable. I don't care where you are in the valley, at any given time there are ants able and willing to accept any ride. Just two days ago, two pax asked me about driving for Uber because they had just signed up. Also that day a casino security guard said he was signing up next week. Eventually, there will be a tipping point where Uber would raise rates, once the group size of drivers dwindles down. Don't see it happening soon, as I see more drivers today than yesterday.
All I hear from pax is, "Uber is getting expensive, I used to pay $XX.XX", so I don't see pax being happy to pay 2x what they're used to paying. So we are already losing ridership.
Uber is an app. Once they start forcing background checks or drug testing, etc., it gets in that employee vs. IC grey area. Government would have to force each business (the IC driver) to background checks. Can they? Do they force other businesses, Walgreens, McDonalds, etc. to the same requirements? If Uber decides to require background checks, it would only be for THEIR best interest, saving on lawsuit settlements, not for the driver's sake or driver retention. And again, can they? Uber is not my employer.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

Taxi2Uber said:


> Once they start forcing background checks or drug testing, etc., it gets in that employee vs. IC grey area. Government would have to force each business (the IC driver) to background checks. Can they? Do they force other businesse


My last job was doing HR for a door knocking company. I ran background checks and scheduled drug screens for the masses of asses that entered the revolving door. Higher turnover than U and L combined! Everyone was an IC.


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

hulksmash said:


> 50% for not even owning the primary and most expensive tool required to perform the job is ludicrous. Taxi drivers keep 100% of the fare and just pay the rental and maybe a small fee for dispatch, credit card processing, etc. I think 25% just for providing insurance and maintaining an app should be sufficient.


_Just_ pay the rental? They aren't exactly cheap. Still have to work long hours to recover that bill. Where I drove taxi, no lease, but company got 55%, driver got 45%. Tips were the only reason it worked. Without it, you're in Uber territory.
25% of what? What rider pays? Or actual fare after booking fees? On short rides, it's the booking fee that's the killer. Rider pays $10. Driver gets $5. Looks ugly. Take $2.25 booking fee off $10, then 25% off that, and its $5.81. Not much better.


Mista T said:


> My last job was doing HR for a door knocking company. I ran background checks and scheduled drug screens for the masses of asses that entered the revolving door. Higher turnover than U and L combined! Everyone was an IC.


Ok, but was it government forced, as the other poster wishes?


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

Taxi2Uber said:


> Ok, but was it government forced, as the other poster wishes?


Was not government forced.

We were selling energy services. The vendors had various levels of drug testing and background requirements. Some wanted stringent checks, others could care less. It was corporate mandated.


----------



## 25rides7daysaweek (Nov 20, 2017)

goneubering said:


> A $2.40 minimum??!! This makes no sense at all. How can drivers make any money with such an outrageously LOW price? Is that a typo?


2.40 for the initial pickup. time and mileage would be additional. I get 1.60 in chicago. Customers wouldnt care and I get $20 more a day. Sounds like a win to me...


----------



## UberDiaz (Aug 6, 2016)

Mista T said:


> Uber and Lyft rides could become more expensive in Seattle. The city is considering setting a minimum fare per ride and other regulations in an effort to ensure drivers are compensated fairly.
> 
> The Seattle City Council is expected to introduce a resolution this week to start the process toward enacting new regulations that could change how on-demand transportation companies operate in the region. The city will explore a minimum base fare of $2.40 per ride for Uber and Lyft and a minimum compensation for all independent contractors, which includes drivers for transportation networks.
> 
> ...


Dam it's about time! I hope it goes through and affects other cities. Even if the rates were raised by a dollar, it would still be cheaper than a taxi. Riders weren't complaining when uberx first started so they shouldn't be *****ing cuz they are still getting a good deal. Uber keeps bending theirselves over and taking the big one lol all they had to do was raise it to a reasonable price. Now look at them, all negative news and their reputation is not like it was.



bsliv said:


> Imagine if you were a baker and the city forced a minimum price of $5 per loaf. Or you tutor after school and they forced a $50/hr minimum fee. Haircuts are now $25.
> 
> Are rideshare drivers too small to fail? Will the city force a maximum price too? Will the city create a flat rate for all?
> 
> ...


I believe there would be a cap on drivers if that happened just like uber did with uberblack.



Taxi2Uber said:


> Well, in my market, Uber is already reliable. I don't care where you are in the valley, at any given time there are ants able and willing to accept any ride. Just two days ago, two pax asked me about driving for Uber because they had just signed up. Also that day a casino security guard said he was signing up next week. Eventually, there will be a tipping point where Uber would raise rates, once the group size of drivers dwindles down. Don't see it happening soon, as I see more drivers today than yesterday.
> All I hear from pax is, "Uber is getting expensive, I used to pay $XX.XX", so I don't see pax being happy to pay 2x what they're used to paying. So we are already losing ridership.
> Uber is an app. Once they start forcing background checks or drug testing, etc., it gets in that employee vs. IC grey area. Government would have to force each business (the IC driver) to background checks. Can they? Do they force other businesses, Walgreens, McDonalds, etc. to the same requirements? If Uber decides to require background checks, it would only be for THEIR best interest, saving on lawsuit settlements, not for the driver's sake or driver retention. And again, can they? Uber is not my employer.


They were paying 2x more when uberx first came out so it would be just like going back to the old rates. They were happy paying for the service and it was still half the price of a taxi. Riders know what kind of service uber offers so they will pay, or they can pay 4x more for a cab. I think drivers will be ok needless to say.


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

UberDiaz said:


> They were paying 2x more when uberx first came out so it would be just like going back to the old rates. They were happy paying for the service and it was still half the price of a taxi. Riders know what kind of service uber offers so they will pay, or they can pay 4x more for a cab. I think drivers will be ok needless to say.


Yes, Uber was paying drivers 2x what they are paying now, but with upfront pricing now, pax are paying Uber close to what they were paying then. Uber rates to pax are still cheaper than taxis, in general, but its getting closer and closer. Doesn't mean driver pay will rise with it.
There will always be pax who will take Uber over a taxi, even at any cost. After the music festival, Uber pax were willing to pay $250 with surge, rather than take a taxi for $60. But those are the exceptions.
Here in Vegas, Uber designated pickup spots at some casinos and the airport, are not very convenient. I meet pax everyday telling me they took a cab at a particular location because it was easier and not that much more.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

freeFromUber said:


> Excellent point, they are embracing CAPITALISM not socialism.


You missed the point entirely.

I never said abandon capitalism, use it for wants, and use socialism for needs that's what each does best.
I've talked to people from China, asking about the ratio of socialism to capitalism, I'm told it's about 50/50
and that is the point i make, nations need both, for all of one is bad on either side.

Capitalism for wants, socialism for needs. All of the western nations that do this their health care costs
are about half of what they are in the USA.

Let me tell you a little story: in 1980, I voted for Reagan. I got tired of arguing with democrats, so one day I went to the library and looked up the repub administrations versus democrat administrations, and looked up the real data, who did best, overall. The reason I did this was that I just assumed repubs would have beaten the pans of dems, and I wanted the hard data so i could win the arguments I was having with my friends ( Im artist, as are most of my friends, who are very liberal ).

See, I had bought into all of the thought-terminating clichés from republicans, etc, and I was totally astounded when I discovered that the hard stats gave democrats the definite edge. So, though I still couldn't wrap my head around why that was true, I started to vote for democrats. I'm a result person, whoever does better,overall, judging by the stats over along period, tells me that that party has the better odds of doing better for the country. I looked at the data from 1980 back to about Teddy Roosevelt.It took me awhile, but, in time, I began to understand why. The first thing I realized that all the clichés repubs were saying about dems were untrue. Anyway, let's look at the last 58 years, where dems have had trouble getting their way because of repub filibusters.

the standard of living has declined in the last 58 yeas, and republicans have occupied
the white house for 30 of those years. The biggest thing that changed, and hasn't been
reverted to what it was before the decline, was progressivity in the tax code was changed where the incline was up to 70% for very rich people, down to 25% today. The best dems did to revert it was up to 39% at one point, still a far cry from the 1950s decade. Note that the high rate was for the very rich, poor and middle class were taxed much less.

Dems only have had a filibuster proof majority was for about 50 something days out of the 8 years of Obama and repubs filibustered everything the dems put forth. Despite that, Obama got a 2700 page bill passed, the ACA during a short window when they had a filibuster proof majority.. Trump, with the presidency, the house, and the senate, has failed to repeal and replace it.

Here's what republicans don't understand. A person making 500,000,000 a year
could live just as well on 50,000,000 a year. So, the tax dollars we are no longer getting are causing deficits, deficits cause inflation, and given that the poor and middle class cannot hedge no where near as well as the rich, inflation taxes the middle class and poor, and not the rich. This is why income disparity has widened so much, where the rich are staying way ahead of inflation, and getting almost all of the economic gains, where middle class and poor, their wealth and incomes have stayed flat.

Trickle Down economics does not work. WTFU.

In 1969, when I left high school, adjusting for inflation, minimum wage was higher than it is now ( it was about 11 per hour, adjusting for inflation ) and unemployment was less than 4%. There were more unions,and the disparity between union jobs and non union jobs were better than they are today favoring union jobs.



> p.s. Trump at 51% approval rating. (Obummer was at 46% approval on this date in his presidency).


Oh, puhleeze.

Yeah, that's Rasmussen for ya, a favorite of Fox news
Why? Because Rasmussen calls mostly landlines, which is mostly older people.
Heck, if all you call on a poll are landlines, I'm surprised Trump's rating wasn't a lot higher.

You're not going to get an accurate result if that's all you call.
The only poll worth a darn is RealClearPolitics _which shows the average of all the major polls. _

On RCP , Currently Trump is at about 41% which is about right, he's been hovering at around 40% all along. Not seeing anything different here.

Obama's rating on the RCP averages of all the polls on April 11 2010 (about the current juncture ) was 47%

The hard truth is that Obama's ratings *all through his presidency ( it's at 57% as of 1/18 ) creams Trump. *

IN fact, of all the presidents, *Trump's ratings are the worst. *

Probably because he's a terrible president, and a despicable human being. 



freeFromUber said:


> The concept of unions IS bad. It may have been a little more necessary in the 1960's or 70's....but not today. If you are willing to work hard and do the right thing, you don't need a union to take a sizable chunk of your pay to do your bidding for you on occasion.


Wrong, current Bureau of Labor Statics report:

_Nonunion workers had median weekly earnings that were 80 percent of earnings for workers 
who were union members ($829 versus $1,041)._
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf

Dues are nominal, the hard truth is if you want to earn more money, join a union.


----------



## freeFromUber (Mar 1, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> I've talked to people from China, asking about the ratio of socialism to capitalism, I'm told it's about 50/50
> and that is the point i make


You don't actually believe all this subterfuge you write, do you? It's just for sh!ts and giggles, right? 
You understand China is a communist country right? Very little socialism and even less capitalism. Everything is controlled by the government...EVERYTHING. In fact, the government employed over 2 million people just to control what people can access on the internet, which is practically nothing, by the way. No wonder the people you supposedly talk to think things are honky dory. 
I don't know if I would call the rest of you post a story...a "fable" would be a better choice of words.


----------



## KMANDERSON (Jul 19, 2015)

Mista T said:


> Uber and Lyft rides could become more expensive in Seattle. The city is considering setting a minimum fare per ride and other regulations in an effort to ensure drivers are compensated fairly.
> 
> The Seattle City Council is expected to introduce a resolution this week to start the process toward enacting new regulations that could change how on-demand transportation companies operate in the region. The city will explore a minimum base fare of $2.40 per ride for Uber and Lyft and a minimum compensation for all independent contractors, which includes drivers for transportation networks.
> 
> ...


Finally a local government Uber can't buy.



Uber's Guber said:


> Restaurants I frequent have already replaced wait staff with computer touch screens, and my bank replaced some counter clerks with sophisticated ATMs. The effects are only beginning, and level-entry jobs are definitely disappearing.


My bank in Texas has done the same and minimum wage here is 7.25hr.


----------



## hanging in there (Oct 1, 2014)

Uber's Guber said:


> If Uber thought they could jack up the price without affecting ride quanity, they would do it in a heartbeat, and drivers wouldn't even get a part of it.


They are already starting to do that.


----------



## freeFromUber (Mar 1, 2016)

hanging in there said:


> They are already starting to do that.


Correct. It's called up front pricing. Similar to the way airlines price their seats...it's constantly changing.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

freeFromUber said:


> You don't actually believe all this subterfuge you write, do you? It's just for sh!ts and giggles, right?
> You understand China is a communist country right? Very little socialism and even less capitalism. Everything is controlled by the government...EVERYTHING. In fact, the government employed over 2 million people just to control what people can access on the internet, which is practically nothing, by the way. No wonder the people you supposedly talk to think things are honky dory.
> I don't know if I would call the rest of you post a story...a "fable" would be a better choice of words.


China's economy grew 7 times as fast as America's over the past decade (316% growth vs. 43%). On the other hand, due to its embrace of private ownership of businesses, there is tremendous room to grow, and that's why it's growing so fast owing to the contrast of one state to another ( total communism to communism plus capitalism), noting that China's GDP per capita is the 91st-lowest in the world, below Bosnia & Herzegovina.

If it were that bad, why has American corporations moved so many of its factories to China? Of course, it's cheap labor, but the picture you're painting isn't completely accurate, though it is accurate in some respects.

Communism is supposed to be the final objective of socialism, but it's a utopian fantasy, of course, owing to the corrupt nature of power, socialist ideals usually translate to 100% authoritarian control and human rights abuses, and if it's actually socialist, then 100% ownership of all the means of production and distribution of goods and services. There is gov ownership of tools of production, but it's not 100%, there is a lot of private enterprise in China, which is why it is doing well, but the point I was raising that it's not 100%, it's not a 'capitalist' society in the American sense, and I believe any society that is 100% capitalist is doomed to failure, just as any society that is 100% socialist/communist is doomed to failure (i.e, North Korea, Cuba, etc) , and that a blend of the two is the path to success but democracy and a constitution with a bill of rights and a gov and people that believe in it is imperative and must be maintained in that equation/ratio. For me, the debate is ratio what is the optimum ratio of one to the other?

In fact, if you look at the ideological definition of communism, China, though it calls itself communism, it's not de facto communism at all according to one fellow, Max Yang, who was born and raised in China, it's a socialist country ( see his description of China https://www.quora.com/Is-Chinas-communism-bad ) and that is the question I put to a Chinese student who was one of my riders, he told me it was about 50/50. That may or may not be true, of course, it's just a student's opinion, it's just one guy on the internet's opinion ( noting that he couldn't have written what he wrote if he were in China). In fact, what the student told me it was 50/50 communism/capitalism but gov ownership versus private ownership is what that actually means, and thus I think it's a red herring to get lost over terms such as socialism or communism. Their official definitions are utopian fantasies, and their realities are degrees of authoritarianism and gov ownership of tools of production and distribution versus private ownership and personal freedoms.

Now, don't make the error of logic I'm advocating authoritarianism, I loath it of any kind. When I was growing up, I was taught communism equals poverty. Well, 70% of the student body of USCD are from China, and they, not only pay a lot more than San Diego residents for their schooling, and many are not just living in dorms, they are living in upscale apartments in neighboring La Jolla, which is San Diego's Beverly Hills. Go figure. The practical reality of communism is that it is centrally controlled authoritarian socialism, it is socialism take to the extreme left as far as the pendulum will swing, just as fascism is taking the pendulum to the right as far as it will swing and that I oppose, I oppose both the extreme left and the extreme right.

But, You, as an American citizen, can go to China, pitch a business idea, and if they like it, they will fund it. I was told that by an American who has a factory there. Try doing that in America. I'm not saying I approve of China's authoritarian society, by no means, but we, they, others, we all have our pros and cons, it's a complex world and I also loath looking at reality through any ideological lens ( well, i strive not to, anyway ). Yes, they do not have our Constitution and our bill of rights, and that's absolutely horrible. I"m looking solely at economics; Chinese malls put the best mall in La Jolla to shame, that's what that American told me, and Yang's description of urban life in China confirms this. On the other hand: China's centrally directed country is problematic, it leads to all sorts of miscalculations about what it's citizens actually need: there are over 64 million residences that are empty, including entire towns. It's largest mall is 99% empty ( defies the idea that if you build it, they will come, but you do have to build it in the right place ).

China has a history of civil rights abuse (as does America, though we have more freedoms-- though in the past, you didn't have much freedom if you were black, and going back further, a woman), corruption, intellectual property theft ( it's huge ) etc., but the American told me the new president of China is clamping down on IP theft, and gov corruption, so that's good. That being said, China is not "our friend", by no means, and no doubt they are doing lots of bad things to America. Once upon a time, there was an iron curtain around china, it's citizens could not leave, that is no longer true.

Another Chinese fellow writes about what is bad in China https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-bad-things-about-China

My only point in all this is that not everything about socialism is bad, and not everything about capitalism is good, that both extremes are bad, and let's explore what is good about each, adopt it, 'cause it's all about that "more perfect union" ideal someone once wrote about. We're still learning that one--maybe one day we'll get there. One thing I believe, is that the only way to get their is via civil discourse and debate. Shouting, name calling, use of weasel words, loaded phrases, clinging to ideology of any kind, kneejerking, etc, will never get us there (didn't say you did this, but others do).

And, look up the definition of "subterfuge".


----------



## freeFromUber (Mar 1, 2016)

sub·ter·fuge
ˈsəbtərˌfyo͞oj/Submit
noun
noun: subterfuge; plural noun: subterfuges
deceit used in order to achieve one's goal.
synonyms:	trickery, intrigue, deviousness, deceit, deception, dishonesty, cheating, duplicity, guile, cunning, craftiness, chicanery, pretense, fraud, fraudulence More
"the use of subterfuge by journalists"
trick, hoax, ruse, wile, ploy, stratagem, artifice, dodge, bluff, pretense, deception, fraud, blind, smokescreen;
informalcon, scam
"a disreputable subterfuge"....

Like I said....


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Fascism is not the opposite of communism. Both imply an authoritarian government. 

According to the founder of fascism, B. Mussolini, it is, "Everything in the state." Meaning the government is supreme and all the subjects must conform to the ruling body's decisions. It is, "Nothing outside the state." Meaning the country must grow and eventually rule the world and have every person submit to the state. It is, "Nothing against the state." Meaning no criticizing the state. 

According to K. Marx, The theory of communism may be summed up in one sentence. "Abolish all private property."

I believe North Korea is a fascist, communist state. 

Both communism and fascism have a large, overbearing, government with extremely limited rights for the individual. I suggest the opposite of an all encompassing state is no state, or anarchy. 

So, the pendulum should swing from total control of one's life by the government to no government. A pendulum swinging from total control of individuals to total control of individuals is not much of a swing.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Uber's Guber said:


> Restaurants I frequent have already replaced wait staff with computer touch screens, and my bank replaced some counter clerks with sophisticated ATMs. The effects are only beginning, and level-entry jobs are definitely disappearing.


I'm in Orlando and the minimum wage is much lower than that and we have touch screens replacing wait staff. That has nothing to do with wages.


----------



## freeFromUber (Mar 1, 2016)

Oscar Levant said:


> just as fascism is taking the pendulum to the right as far as it will swing and that I oppose


Fascism has nothing to do with liberal or conservative (left or right), it's all about putting the government above all else. It's a form of dictatorship and control.


----------



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

Demon said:


> I'm in Orlando and the minimum wage is much lower than that and we have touch screens replacing wait staff. That has nothing to do with wages.


It has everything to do with it, and more. Touch screens don't have to deal with lazy low-IQ snowflakes who call in sick, clock in late, need a cigarette and pee break every 10 minutes, steal from the company, file bogus work-comp claims. Florida is not waiting around for the west coast liberal putrid way-of-thinking to creep into their state. Florida is being pro-active instead of reactive.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Uber's Guber said:


> It has everything to do with it, and more. Touch screens don't have to deal with lazy low-IQ snowflakes who call in sick, clock in late, need a cigarette and pee break every 10 minutes, steal from the company, file bogus work-comp claims. Florida is not waiting around for the west coast liberal putrid way-of-thinking to creep into their state. Florida is being pro-active instead of reactive.


So it doesn't matter what wages are new technology always comes in the workplace.


----------



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

Demon said:


> So it doesn't matter what wages are new technology always comes in the workplace.


New technology is driven by market-driven strategies.
Take rideshare for instance: Uber/Lyft can't wait to replace lazy whiny ignorant drivers who disrespect customers/refuses pings/shuts off app/mulls all day figuring new ways to game the system/etc etc, with an autonomous vehicle that runs 7/24 doing pool rides


----------



## westsidebum (Feb 7, 2015)

You guys don't get it. You are playing into uber hands when you make a direct connection between rider rates and driver compensation. It's a false link when uber is not profitable and they are taking 25 percent commission and other fees and giving riders a 30 percent subsidy paid for by venture capitalists. The real question is in which direction uber and left should allocate that subsidy towards the driver or more towards the rider. The point is that both companies can keep rates at same price by taking less commission or just pay drivers more and cut back in other places such as international expansion, giving uber staff free meals and other perks etc. BOTH companies are exploit the weak link and are spreading disinformation


----------



## tohellwithu (Nov 30, 2014)

Get a damn good job then driving for uber. U dont need to talk or discusses about these fact, who said what?, how much u make?..or bla bla bla. Quit driving problem solved. I guess its better working for $10/HR then working for these sucker.


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

The teamsters helping non-due paying people? I don't think so. The teamsters represent cabbies.


----------



## dkhosistraviskmadoffda2nd (Apr 7, 2018)

Uber's Guber said:


> It has everything to do with it, and more. Touch screens don't have to deal with lazy low-IQ snowflakes who call in sick, clock in late, need a cigarette and pee break every 10 minutes, steal from the company, file bogus work-comp claims. Florida is not waiting around for the west coast liberal putrid way-of-thinking to creep into their state. Florida is being pro-active instead of reactive.


IDK, apparently a lot of people will support but I know I'm not alone when I don't use self checkouts main reason is selfish if I'm scanning my own products I want a 10% employee discount on top of another 10% discount since I didn't get proper training or sign up to be a effing grocery bagger or cashier, so being I was raised don't get mad get even, when I'm in one of these stores with literally 100 employees walking around but not 1 human cashier open to force the use of them well I've made a habit of first thing in the cart being a nice expensive cut of meat & be sure to leave it to rot while loudly banging in the glass of the fancy robot filming me with the canned goods to least get the human overseer to speak up while I act dumb scracthing & scanning....

I'm also pretty sure if I ever see an Uber branded or any branded self driving car parked on my street or by coincidence it will run over nails some one dropped

A 100K+ car with 100% costs will never be cheaper than paying grandpa Simpson or Apu $2 a trip & picketing $2 themselves EVER EVER EVA even when they come down to 50K 10 years AFTER they're least 100K it'll take 50,000 robot rides to = 1 human driver who can only do what 30 max rides a day

Billions of miles inches apart everyday and people will still die because physics, metal, speeds, & water filled meat bags it's already just 1-2 people per state per day on average it will never get lower because of statistics & population growth...

Understand the Ponzi it is & profit or don't 1000 hired within the hour 996 quit, failed, or fired it's not going anywhere till bailed out or bought out for pennies on the dollar...

It's on no one cares as long as they can summon slave labor, I mean MIT needed to show a 1971 minimum fare is less than a 1981 minimum wage & more than half of drivers earn less, then they murdered a homeless person no one cares they could eat puppies & babies on you tube it doesn't matter

9,000$ per second that's 2 railroad container homes every second they could end homelessness in a year or 2 lol instead they pay a Patsy felon meatbags to eat their own dog food because they smart enough not to $24 an hour in a quarter of a million dollars worth of tech to get rid of the actual humans driving for $3.37 an hour

They burn $100,000 house every 10 seconds

They burn LeBron's annual salary every 2 days

The fact that this is even remotely legal & has been going on years is beyond any level of corruption possible


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Bring back the horse and buggy! Where's my typewriter? 

A company losing billions can't end homelessness. 

Uber grossed $37 billion last year and lost $4.5 billion.
Exxon Mobil grossed $369.4 billion and made a profit of $33.6 billion in 2014 (9% of gross is profit).
Apple grossed $182.8 billion and made a profit of $39.5 billion in 2014 (22% of gross is profit).

What is worse for our society, a company losing money by giving drivers billions of dollars and cheap rides to riders or a company that overcharges consumers and profits $4.5 million / hour?


----------



## freeFromUber (Mar 1, 2016)

bsliv said:


> What is worse for our society, a company losing money by giving drivers billions of dollars and cheap rides to riders or a company that overcharges consumers and profits $4.5 million / hour?


With all due respect...what the F are you trying to say? 
Seriously, I have read your post several times and do not unerstand what you mean or what side you are trying to defend/support.
Are you Oscars son?


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

freeFromUber said:


> With all due respect...what the F are you trying to say?
> Seriously, I have read your post several times and do not unerstand what you mean or what side you are trying to defend/support.
> Are you Oscars son?


I was replying to the post directly above mine. The poster mentioned a couple of examples of technological progress and how the poster would attempt to defeat the progress. The poster mentioned several times how much Uber is losing and how that money could be used to end homelessness. I should have added that I find it amusing that someone would think its illegal to lose money in a business. I provided 2 examples of companies making enough money to end homelessness.

Why would you relate me with Oscar? I didn't suggest nationalizing anything. On the contrary, I suggest Uber has done well by giving billions of dollars to drivers and given millions of cheap rides, both good things. Some could view it as generous. I gave two examples of international companies that dwarf Uber in gross revenue. One makes very large profits and one makes obscene profits. Good for them. Bad for suckers who purchase over priced products. If they want to try to end homelessness, great. I don't expect they will try. It would be a travesty if someone or something tried to force them to do anything with their profits.

I tried to paint Uber as good and Apple as bad. I'm obviously not an artist.

As for who is who's son, I was born during the Eisenhower administration.


----------



## 2Cents (Jul 18, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> The price of rides is below market equlibrium. They can be raised 100 percent and there will be no change in ridership. And they will still be 2 time below the cost of a cab.
> 
> The only reason rides are so cheap is because they are being subsidized by the 4 billion dollars each year investors keep pumping into Uber to keep it afloat or the price of rides would have been raised years ago, in fact they never woulda went down in the first place.


They're being subsidized by the drivers..


----------



## Michael1230nj (Jun 23, 2017)

Ride-Share will go on long after Uber is gone. Uber is not here for the long run they have one goal get to the IPO


----------



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

Well....as of today, the day of the city hearings, Uber has taken away the boost incentives of all us Seattle drivers in anticipation of having to raise the rates.

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/seattle-moves-forward-plan-bring-uber-lyft-regulations-line-taxis/


----------



## UberDiaz (Aug 6, 2016)

Lissetti said:


> Well....as of today, the day of the city hearings, Uber has taken away the boost incentives of all us Seattle drivers in anticipation of having to raise the rates.
> 
> https://www.geekwire.com/2018/seattle-moves-forward-plan-bring-uber-lyft-regulations-line-taxis/


That's a good start


----------



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

UberDiaz said:


> That's a good start


As you guys know, we are also at the same time dealing with Uber and the city of Seattle forcing Uber to allow us drivers to vote on a Union. Uber is much....much unhappy about that. Seattle is threatening to shut Uber down in Seattle if they don't comply.


----------



## UberDiaz (Aug 6, 2016)

Lissetti said:


> As you guys know, we are also at the same time dealing with Uber and the city of Seattle forcing Uber to allow us drivers to vote on a Union. Uber is much....much unhappy about that. Seattle is threatening to shut Uber down in Seattle if they don't comply.


Like I said that's a good start. Horse Uber to make changes if they won't change then their business will hurt and they won't allow their business to be hurt very long so they must change. If every Market in the United States Carlos Seattle and I think Uber will change their mind. Otherwise Uber is dead without drivers and they know it.


----------



## Lissetti (Dec 20, 2016)

UberDiaz said:


> Like I said that's a good start. Horse Uber to make changes if they won't change then their business will hurt and they won't allow their business to be hurt very long so they must change. If every Market in the United States Carlos Seattle and I think Uber will change their mind. Otherwise Uber is dead without drivers and they know it.


We have a thread on this in Seattle ( of course) but here is the general consensus in Seattle, articulated best by poster DexNex:


*DexNexWell-Known Member*
Location:
Seattle, WA
Be very weary about this process.

*The city is absolutely NOT concerned with rideshare driver pay*. Again, no matter what they are saying, this has nothing to do with your pay.

The city wants to raise the rates of rideshare rides to steer passengers away from cheap rides in single cars, and onto public transportation. The city wants the snowflakes to take the bus... that is their end game. This has nothing to do with driver income. The city wants to double the cost of rides to that segment of the "new" urban Seattle population that relies on ride-share to move around the city core. Each one of these that the city can convert to a bus pax is a huge win for congestion on city streets.

Higher rates will result in less rides as pax move to taking public transportation for their daily commute. For most of you, this will mean less income, not more, even if you don't run the commuters. Why? Because as that demand goes away, the drivers will have to find new demand... and that is when they will probably encroach on your business.


----------

