Is Uber exploiting their drivers?

I have been a parttime Uber driver since October, and went fulltime three weeks ago. Uber requires annual safety inspections at the driver's expense (usually $20) and if your paperwork is not up to date your sign-in is disabled until you comply. I am a happy Uber driver.

Doug
 
I have been a parttime Uber driver since October, and went fulltime three weeks ago. Uber requires annual safety inspections at the driver's expense (usually $20) and if your paperwork is not up to date your sign-in is disabled until you comply. I am a happy Uber driver.

Doug

:)

@everyone
What we see here is as old as technology vs people. The steam engine had many people lose their jobs, then created other jobs. Factory automation : same . Computer ... almost same :) . I don't know how long this will last before there is nothing for us to do , except maybe exist ... in this debate some see Uber as the epitome of exploitation and whatnot :).. Well, Uber is technology inexorably moving forward. ddk put it well: Uber is not the real threat, the driverless car will revolutionize the very idea of car ownership and transportation in general. Uber has no choice but , excuse the pun, riding that. From what I've seen on non-luxury cars: Parking themselves in spot that are exactly the length of the car, stopping when someone is in front of the car and lane-change warnings... It won't be decades before driving a car will be seen as passe as putting a vinyl disc on a platter :eek: ... No! I didn't mean to be so mean, sorry guys :)

:D
 
We know Uber do does not make driverless cars. OTHOH if we take the overused Henry Ford example he created a customer able to buy it. We are headed toward an economy of very efficient products and ser
vices. Machines creatheed and operated by machines. The problem is what happens to Uber when we don't need a ride totoe work because we are unemployed? Or we don't have any discretionary income?
 
We are on the verge of a second industrial revolution. We still need customers but no workers.

We are in the beginning of the Third Industrial Revolution. Here's an interesting article in the Economist for your reading pleasure.

http://www.economist.com/node/21553017

Jobs will just change, like they have before during the 1st and 2nd revolutions. And trickle down economics will be the system of the day. If a programmer makes $300 an hour, the economic rule of Opportunity Cost will justify $299 per hour for plumbers, electricians and other trades people.
 
We know Uber do does not make driverless cars. OTHOH if we take the overused Henry Ford example he created a customer able to buy it. We are headed toward an economy of very efficient products and ser
vices. Machines creatheed and operated by machines. The problem is what happens to Uber when we don't need a ride totoe work because we are unemployed? Or we don't have any discretionary income?

Read my post above.. It is not just Uber. Technology displaces people, creates jobs and destroy jobs too. What will the future hold? I don't know but for now, machines are doing some things better than we do... When will they become our doctors, Engineers, Lawyers ? When will they build themselves? (That last thing is current: they already are). Would they need us then? Will they keep us as pets? toys? However flippant these questions might seem they're real and you do see some prominent scientists and philosophers, among them Stephen Hawkings warning us against Artificial Intelligence.
 
I have been a parttime Uber driver since October, and went fulltime three weeks ago. Uber requires annual safety inspections at the driver's expense (usually $20) and if your paperwork is not up to date your sign-in is disabled until you comply. I am a happy Uber driver.

Doug

That's nice you can do that, but the day the driverless car rolls out you'll have experience in a deleted field. That's good Uber has some sort of safety check. They still avoid a LOT of things Taxi's go through.

We know Uber do does not make driverless cars. OTHOH if we take the overused Henry Ford example he created a customer able to buy it. We are headed toward an economy of very efficient products and ser
vices. Machines creatheed and operated by machines. The problem is what happens to Uber when we don't need a ride totoe work because we are unemployed? Or we don't have any discretionary income?

They don't make them, but they're prepping to buy/rent them ASAP. That's the biggest plan they have.

Jobs will just change, like they have before during the 1st and 2nd revolutions. And trickle down economics will be the system of the day. If a programmer makes $300 an hour, the economic rule of Opportunity Cost will justify $299 per hour for plumbers, electricians and other trades people.

Rule of opportunity? No, pay is based on the amount of people in the labor force for the field (including illegal/foreign possibilities, often), primarily. The model you're talking about needs "you pay me this because I could be doing that instead" but only works if someone can do all the things, and they're in demand.
 
Yes, I'll always feel sorry for someone that lost a job at no fault of their own. But in the tech industry it's to be expected and it's very different from the Uber example. First Nokia paid lots of severance for the workers in Finland, and in that field things change fairly fast without robots replacing their new jobs.
Forgetting about the fact that Microsoft bought the division and then laid them off for a moment, you are saying you would be fine if folks got a severance package??

Where as Uber is going to erase an industry of jobs if they can, once it has been gutted.
What? The day driverless cars become common, taxi companies will terminate their lease with taxi drivers just the same. And driverless cars will come from car companies. It is not an invention by Uber. Uber is simply ahead of taxi companies in experimenting with them. But that taxi companies, trucking companies, delivery companies, all are on the path to remove humans out of the loop over time. This is our certain future. Any protectionism is against progress, against consumers and against efficiency of our lives.

No Uber driver will get severance, obviously.
Nor will any taxi driver when their companies go to driverless cars. They are all independent contractors with leased cars and can get terminated just the same as Uber.
 
That's nice you can do that, but the day the driverless car rolls out you'll have experience in a deleted field. That's good Uber has some sort of safety check. They still avoid a LOT of things Taxi's go through.



They don't make them, but they're prepping to buy/rent them ASAP. That's the biggest plan they have.



Rule of opportunity? No, pay is based on the amount of people in the labor force for the field (including illegal/foreign possibilities, often), primarily. The model you're talking about needs "you pay me this because I could be doing that instead" but only works if someone can do all the things, and they're in demand.

Luckily for tradesmen, that's not how the economics of the labor pool works. It the specificity of the labor in the service industry that leads to their higher labor cost. You pay for an expert plumber because you earn 3X that being a doctor, lawyer or computer program. It's inefficient for a computer programer to work on his plumbing, because he can make 3X more writing code.

This is established economic doctrine.
 
Forgetting about the fact that Microsoft bought the division and then laid them off for a moment, you are saying you would be fine if folks got a severance package??


What? The day driverless cars become common, taxi companies will terminate their lease with taxi drivers just the same. And driverless cars will come from car companies. It is not an invention by Uber. Uber is simply ahead of taxi companies in experimenting with them. But that taxi companies, trucking companies, delivery companies, all are on the path to remove humans out of the loop over time. This is our certain future. Any protectionism is against progress, against consumers and against efficiency of our lives.

You're a real word-smith. You jump from one thing across a football field to another. I'm going to not answer many things your bring up because the proposed questions take great length to explain what most people already understand...

Taxi services would take time to integrate into driverless vehicles, they aren't running off of billions of VC dollars. That's a very different change. And your last sentence is just plain silly.
 
Luckily for tradesmen, that's not how the economics of the labor pool works. It the specificity of the labor in the service industry that leads to their higher labor cost. You pay for an expert plumber because you earn 3X that being a doctor, lawyer or computer program. It's inefficient for a computer programer to work on his plumbing, because he can make 3X more writing code.

This is established economic doctrine.

Nonsense is all I'm reading there. In no way does any of that explain anything.

If there were 60 million doctors it'd be unbelievably cut-throat and require special laws to even allow them to pay back school loans. It's very simple. The only limit to how low pay can go during a surplus is what people are willing to take as pay.
 
Taxi services would take time to integrate into driverless vehicles, they aren't running off of billions of VC dollars. That's a very different change. And your last sentence is just plain silly.
VC dollars are not paying for development of driverless cars. Major car companies are as I mentioned. Once they deliver that, and they are 100% on that path, taxi companies are not going to keep hiring people for the sake of it.

You seem to be wanting to stand in the way of progress and increasing convenience for consumers. That is protectionism and it has never worked in a free society.

As I mentioned, we are going to the path of driverless cars used in all manners of our life. Don't keep looking at where we have been. Pay attention to where we are going.
 
VC is funding Uber. Clean the wax out of your ears... (ok I don't know the proper expression to be used over thread)

Driverless transport service also means being recorded. People may not actually like driverless experiences, we don't know yet.

At what point did I suggest any part of "You seem to be wanting to stand in the way of progress and increasing convenience for consumers. That is protectionism and it has never worked in a free society. " ? Saying I don't like something isn't a proposal. Further I didn't suggest we don't move towards it, but have pointed out the flaws in how we're doing it.

I'm awfully curious how the cars will work when the weather changes. They'll probably be seasonal.
 
VC is funding Uber. Clean the wax out of your ears... (ok I don't know the proper expression to be used over thread)
Please take a deep breath and get a hold of your emotions. I will explain this for the third time.

Uber is not, let me repeat, is NOT inventing driverless cars. Yes it is funded by VCs but that funding is not for inventing driverless cars. They are a service company. Driverless cars are being developed by all major car companies. Their market is the entire world population of drivers than just taxis. Once there, taxi companies will deploy them as well as Uber would. Jobs will be lost in that manner no matter which way you look at it which invalidates the argument you are making that when driverless cars come, only uber drivers will be in trouble.

And if they don't do it, ton of other companies would. Tesla for example has already put in the terms of use for their autopilot that their cars cannot be used for taxi service as they plan to potentially roll out that service themselves. Other car companies plan to do the same. After all, they make the cars. Why not use some of their production to have a taxi/shuttle service?

Driverless transport service also means being recorded. People may not actually like driverless experiences, we don't know yet.
You are recorded today with the driver. There is no difference here. But sure, some may not like the idea and there will be a percentage of taxis still managed by drivers that can help you with luggage, provide good conversation, etc.

At what point did I suggest any part of "You seem to be wanting to stand in the way of progress and increasing convenience for consumers. That is protectionism and it has never worked in a free society. " ? Saying I don't like something isn't a proposal. Further I didn't suggest we don't move towards it, but have pointed out the flaws in how we're doing it.
Let me replay your argument since you have forgotten it yourself.

You said that we should not support uber despite the fact that they provide far superior service to consumers, charge far less than taxi and provide cleaner, better cars. Why? Because jobs will be lost at Taxi companies. That is textbook protectionism where you attempt to keep an industry alive despite market forces otherwise. Worse yet, you are doing that because the enabler is technology: always connected computers in our pockets and in the future, driverless cars. In that regard, you are also anti-advancement in technology.

As with the Internet vloggers in the OP video, you are running with a headline of "don't we feel sorry for taxi drivers." Well, I feel sorry for many other people whom I fund through charity contributions. I am not going to sign up to pay 3X more for a rid, be in a dirty falling apart taxi that is being run into the ground, wait forever in lines to get one out of goodness of my heart.

If you are a taxi driver and plan to retire well after 5 to 10 years, then I suggest using the time now to educate yourself in another profession. Change is coming and there is nothing that is going to stop it I am afraid. The same Internet that may take away your job, provides infinite opportunity to learn some other profession. Use the time while waiting to pick up the next customer to stream some podcast on a new line of work. We didn't protect horse and buggies, and I am afraid the population at large won't try to protect taxi drivers either.
 
Nonsense is all I'm reading there. In no way does any of that explain anything.

If there were 60 million doctors it'd be unbelievably cut-throat and require special laws to even allow them to pay back school loans. It's very simple. The only limit to how low pay can go during a surplus is what people are willing to take as pay.

Honestly you have zero understanding of basic macro economics and I'm wasting my time. Unsubscribing, back to audio.
 
Stop putting words in my mouth Amir. You can't quote me for a recommendation for protectionism, because there isn't one. Furthermore articles all over the web talk about divisions of Uber working with them on driverless vehicles such as road tractor-trailors.

This thread has become like chewing glass. I'll leave it with this.
 
Last edited:
VC dollars are not paying for development of driverless cars. Major car companies are as I mentioned. Once they deliver that, and they are 100% on that path, taxi companies are not going to keep hiring people for the sake of it.

You seem to be wanting to stand in the way of progress and increasing convenience for consumers. That is protectionism and it has never worked in a free society.

As I mentioned, we are going to the path of driverless cars used in all manners of our life. Don't keep looking at where we have been. Pay attention to where we are going.

AMIR I agree with your premise. Where are the customers coming from? Once you sell your cars to Uber then what? They lay off the drivers. Where do the customers come from?
 
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wire...llion-settle-claims-driver-deception-44901418

Uber Technologies is paying $20 million to settle allegations that it duped people into driving for its ride-hailing service with false promises about how much they would earn and how much they would have to pay to finance a car.
The agreement announced Thursday with the Federal Trade Commission covers statements Uber made from late 2013 until 2015 while trying to recruit more drivers to expand its service and remain ahead of its main rival, Lyft.
The FTC alleged that most Uber drivers were earning far less in 18 major U.S. cities than Uber published online. Regulators also asserted that drivers wound up paying substantially more to lease cars than the company had claimed.
 
Love uber as a consumer, but its quite an awful business.

Its predicated on regulatory arbitrage (re: labor laws) and low capital invest,emt to boost margins and hence, valuation. Theyve already dropped 13 billion into it and Uber cant turn a profit. They now have big driver problems (supply) and ultimately prices have been rising. Cabs suck, but Uber has its own set of issues....and have basically become a sub prime lender to get drivers.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu