Slashdot Mirror
Uber Challenges Study Suggesting Its Drivers Earn $3.37 Per Hour (reuters.com)
An MIT study using data from more than 1,100 Uber and Lyft drivers concluded they're earning a median pretax profit of just $3.37 per hour. But now Reuters reports:
Uber Chief Executive Dara Khosrowshahi criticized the MIT study in a tweet on Friday as "Mathematically Incompetent Theories (at least as it pertains to ride-sharing)," and linked to a response by Uber chief economist Jonathan Hall that challenged the study's methodology. Hall's rebuttal to the study said the likely misinterpretation of a survey question and the study's "inconsistent logic" produced a wage result that was below similar studies elsewhere. He said the study used a "flawed methodology" compared with a survey that found drivers' average hour earnings were $15.68. "The earnings figures suggested in the paper are less than half the hourly earnings numbers reported in the very survey the paper derives its data from," wrote Hall.
The MIT study's lead author, Stephen Zoepf, told Reuters in an email on Saturday, "I can see how the question on revenue might have been interpreted differently by respondents" and called Hall's rebuttal thoughtful. "I'm re-running the analysis this weekend using Uber's more optimistic assumptions and should have new results and a public response acknowledging the discrepancy by Monday," he wrote.
Saturday Uber's CEO tweeted a thank-you to MIT, "for listening and revisiting this study and its findings. Right thing to do."
The MIT study's lead author, Stephen Zoepf, told Reuters in an email on Saturday, "I can see how the question on revenue might have been interpreted differently by respondents" and called Hall's rebuttal thoughtful. "I'm re-running the analysis this weekend using Uber's more optimistic assumptions and should have new results and a public response acknowledging the discrepancy by Monday," he wrote.
Saturday Uber's CEO tweeted a thank-you to MIT, "for listening and revisiting this study and its findings. Right thing to do."
Nice, calm discussion about the merits of an argument. Listening to and understanding the points made by those with an opposing viewpoint. Assessing the points they make in an unbiased manner. And acknowledging when they may have a legitimate point, and re-doing your work to adjust for it.
Instead we mostly have people shouting at each other, refusing to listen to or even to interact with each other simply because they have different viewpoints. Because both sides "know" that their side is right and the other is wrong.
it was the part where 30% of the drivers made nothing when maintenance was factored in. I've heard Uber called a payday loan on the maintenance of your car.
I'll say this, I've taken 5 Ubers in my life and 3 of them were recently laid off folks trying to make rent with cars bought from when they were employed.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Which would translate into the taxpayer basically supporting Uber's business model by reducing drivers' overall taxes owing.
That's not even counting the underlying problem that at least some jurisdictions don't even buy the claim that Uber drivers are private contractors, meaning Uber is stiffing those jurisdictions in payroll taxes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
>Which would translate into the taxpayer basically supporting Uber's business model by reducing drivers' overall taxes owing.
Being able to deduct income used as part of employment isn't unique to Uber. The same thing would be true for an independent taxi driver.
Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
Depends on the way you interpret the data, the $3.37 figure comes in from the worst case scenario of figuring in mileage and maintenance costs, sales taxes and "no-work hours" etc as a direct cost to the Uber driver. Eg. if one Uber driver does 2 rides in a day before and after their 'day job', the $3.37 number would have that as "10 hours worked, 2 rides".
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
by selling copies of my poorly-xeroxed newsletter on the street corner. Should I be banned from doing so on the grounds that I can't feed a wife and two kids by doing that?
Can you guess who is going to get that job?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Of course businesses can. But there are two questions to ask:
1. Is an Uber driver really a private contractor? That's an open question in a number of jurisdictions.
2. If the pay is as low as is stated, then in effect allowing Uber drivers to deduct vehicle maintenance amounts to an effective subsidy to Uber (much as Walmart keeping a lot of employees on low hour part time schedules while those employees continue to access some degree of the social safety net amounts to a subsidy for Walmart).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Uber no longer needs to pay its drivers well to build its base; that's done, and the rates came tumbling down.
The pay is the smallest it can get away with before drivers leave in droves, in order to compete with cabs and other services. The only upside to Uber driving is the ability to set your own hours. Otherwise, there's no reason not to work at fast food.
1. Is an Uber driver really a private contractor? That's an open question in a number of jurisdictions.
In general, you are a private/independent contractor if:
1. You are under no obligation to work a specific time or place
2. Your employer doesn't tell you how to do your job
The first requirement is usually the primary delineation. If you can show up whenever you want and work as much as you want, you are clearly not a traditional employee.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Worst case scenario is making nothing after fuel and maintenance.
Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
Eg. if one Uber driver does 2 rides in a day before and after their 'day job', the $3.37 number would have that as "10 hours worked, 2 rides".
I highly doubt that is the calculation used. Especially as even gross, then assuming that those two trips total an hour, that would be a net hourly rate of $33.70, which is very unlikely to be the case. If that really is the net rate, then I am in the wrong business.
Or is the Uber economist's more confusing than it looks at a glance?
At a high level his argument seems to be that MIT analyzed some data from this survey and came up with an inappropriately low number.
The error the MIT paper is being accused of making is the survey tries to get 3 numbers:
1) How many hours a week do you work on a ridesharing service?
2) How much money do you make in a week?
3) What percentage of your income comes from ridesharing?
So the $3.37 is basically (#2 / #3) / #1 (presumably minus expenses).
The Uber economist claims that respondents actually interpreted the first question as:
1) How many hours a week do you work total?
So if you worked 1 hour ridesharing and made $20, then you worked 40 hours at a regular job then the $20 you made ridesharing would be divided by 41 instead of 1 to give you earnings of ~$0.50/hour.
The problem is the survey questions look a bit odd and the Uber economist claims an even odder interpretation:
Q11: “How many hours per week do you work on average? Combine all of the on-demand services that you work for.”
Q14: “How much money do you make in the average month? Combine the income from all your on-demand activities.”
So the Uber economist claims that the MIT authors interpreted #11 to mean hours only from on-demand services and #14 to be money from all sources. Which is a bizarre interpretation of questions with almost identical questions wording, yet instead of pointing out how weird the interpretation is the Uber economist actually seems to imply that their interpretation is correct and it was the respondents who misunderstood. Which makes me wonder what the actual sequence and context of the questions looked like.
Unfortunately he doesn't link to the study and the survey questions seem to only be available if "If you’re a media member and would like a full question list and anonymized data/calculations used in this report, please make a request here.
The MIT authors seem to be taking the criticism seriously so maybe I just suck at reading, but given the nature of the claimed error it seems like he should be able to make a much clearer argument.
I stole this Sig
Except you're working for yourself and not another company as an employee.
What's the difference? No one is forcing me to do either.
The scientific term you're looking for is not 'coincidence' but 'bullshit'. Every Uber ride carrying a passenger is a car drive not taken by that passenger. Because rideshare drivers do not have to loiter or deadhead like cabdrivers, there is no net contribution to traffic.
That's why there are FUCKING REGULATIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Everyone gets reasonable chunks. Uber is just indignantly starting a race to the bottom.
Slashdot told me not to yell but I man come on really you're supposed to be smart people. Don't give away a chance at a reasonably healthy society. The enemy is not the people who you think it is, and Uber is no white knight.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I'll point out that Uber and it's ilk are bypassing employee protection laws that folks literally died for. Tempers can get a little high as a result. It's easy to forget all that if you've worked in tech your whole life, have a college degree and avoided the worst of the layoffs; which to be blunt a lot of us /.ers have.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
it said the median was $3.37/hr. Worst case is that you make nothing, and the study said 30% of the drivers were living that 'worst case'.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
... Every Uber ride carrying a passenger is a car drive not taken by that passenger. Because rideshare drivers do not have to loiter or deadhead like cabdrivers, there is no net contribution to traffic.
That would be true only if you assume the passenger would drive if did not have the Uber ride. If someone instead of using an Uber car takes the metro, a bus, a train or uses a bicycle or walks then it is the case where Uber increases traffic.
I drive for Lyft sometimes, but the pay is similar. I earn anywhere between $8 and $20 an hour. Mostly it averages in the $10-12 range. (In the Portland, Oregon area.) I have only been doing it for a few months. I have talked to some guys who were doing it when ride sharing first came to the region, and they said that they were making around $800 a night on the weekends. I pull around $200 for ~6-8 hours on Saturday. Any other night I am lucky to get between $75-100.
I do not understand how people can try to make a living doing it.
I do it for a few reasons. I like to drive and talk to people. It gets me out into the real world and off of the computer. I also appreciate that I can write off car maintenance, tires and things like that. I would also be able to write off my cell phone, but my main job already pays for that.
I am pretty sure the ~$3 figure is wrong, from one simple fact - Uber and Lyft are still in business.
Because the truth is no-one could even afford gas for cars at that kind of wage. No drive would work for more than a few days for that kind of wage. And all of the Uber/Lyft drivers I have had have all been doing it for a while.
The fact is that serious drivers work for both companies, and know how to take advantage of surge pricing and location to make sure they earn a decent amount of money. The fact is those jobs do provide a huge degree of flexibility that is highly valued by all of the drivers I have spoken to, and I talk to all of them I'm riding with about how they like working for Uber or Lyft.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
and with that Gig workers class cable guys and fedex do not fit in it or 1099er
In what way? Am I stealing? Lying? Neglecting to be truthful?
I earn $13.37 per hour.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
So, you get a fare to drive 40 miles to the airport. Then what? Wait around for another - unpaid? Drive back with no fare - unpaid?
I haven't read the MIT study but unless they're including that waiting/empty driving time in the hourly calculations then they're overstating income.
Uber will quote pay per hour with a passenger in the car, but that's not the actual time worked.
. Because rideshare drivers do not have to loiter or deadhead like cabdrivers, there is no net contribution to traffic.
So if I use Uber to get to the train station, I teleport there and the road isn't used by a car taking me?
The car that doesn't exist doesn't also then have to use a road to get back to my village as that's where the driver lives and you've said he can't loiter by the station?
You're a fucking genius and no mistake. How could I have failed to spot the total absence of traffic in this. To think I might have done something stupid like catch the fucking bus instead.
Img guys this is so so overwhelming $3.37
The Uber car does not magically come into existence when a transit rider uses it. It already exists.
The edge case: A transit rider takes an Uber instead of taking a train he normally walks to. Because an Uber costs more on the average than a transit ride, people will do this only if they have a toothache or an urgent appointment. Net change in traffic, zero cars, because he is taking an Uber instead of his own ride.
The common case: A transit rider normally drives to the train station, but takes an Uber instead. Zero net change in traffic that day, but a parking place at the station is saved. People living in East Coast cities with on-street parking in the snow where you have to get up at 2 am to move your car because it better not be found in the morning in the same spot where you parked it last night are going to ditch the car and always Uber to the station. Net change: minus one car and plus one parking place at the station.
When to Uber to the station, your own car is still parked at home, rather than being in traffic. Two people in one car, instead of two people in two cars. But best of all, an increasing number of big-city drivers will decide they no longer need a car at all. In fact, this encourages more people to ride transit if a train would save money and/or time on your regular route. In fact, I predict that rideshare apps will make arrangements with transit operators to include a transit option in ride route displays so riders have the opportunity to save by taking the train over part of their route, rather than Uber the whole way. People will be apt to do this for their regular commute.
When to Uber to the station, your own car is still parked at home, rather than being in traffic.
So fucking what? I'm still in a car that's in traffic, and wouldn't otherwise be.
Two people in one car, instead of two people in two cars.
No. Two people in one car, instead of one person in one car and one person doing a job that pays well instead.
In fact, this encourages more people to ride transit if a train would save money and/or time on your regular route.
Wait? Access to Uber encourages people to use the train? Is it really that shit?
In fact, I predict
Predict what you like, based on your demonstrated logic and analysis thus far I'm going to disregard you anyway. In fact, I didn't even bother reading the end of your post. You make that little sense.
Analysis of the facts isn't "uber bashing". That's just an analysis of the facts.
Identifying hidden costs, isn't "uber bashing." That just lets potential uber drivers make an informed decision.
Discussing previous times Uber broke the law, lied, or engaged in terrible behavior isn't "Uber bashing". They earned that by their actions.
Lyft may also have a terrible wage but they haven't been in the news as much for lying, cheating, and doing terrible things (not saying they don't do it- no clue- but they are not in the news for it constantly).
Uber has done wrong repeatedly- the researcher may have identified another area.
From looking at realistic videos on Youtube by several drivers- it looks like it is possible to make about $11 to $19 before taxes and before maintenance/replacement costs (but after insurance costs). But they may be 'best case' compared to the 'average uber driver experience'.
Likewise, I don't see a big difference if you are sitting reading a book at home, or in the car waiting for a fare *if* you are doing this part time for luxury cash. In that case, it's bonus cash.
On the other hand, if you are sitting in the car instead of working at a salary/hourly job, then sitting in the car without a fare counts. If you are sitting waiting for a fare as part of your job, it's part of the job (and closer to a traditional taxi driver).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
So, you get a fare to drive 40 miles to the airport. Then what? Wait around for another - unpaid? Drive back with no fare - unpaid?
I haven't read the MIT study but unless they're including that waiting/empty driving time in the hourly calculations then they're overstating income.
Uber will quote pay per hour with a passenger in the car, but that's not the actual time worked.
The Stanford gender pay gap study did this (and lots more) correctly. They were very careful, and used a very large amount of data. They found that average pay was about $18 per hour, less about $5 per hour in fuel and maintenance costs, for a net of about $13 per hour.
Total pay wasn't really their focus, though, they were looking to see if there was a gender gap -- and found there was. Women make about 7% less than men. They were able to identify the specific causes of this discrepancy, and how much each contributed, which is a first. FWIW, 50% of the difference was caused by the men driving faster, 20% by women choosing to avoid areas that might be dangerous and 30% caused by women having less experience as Uber drivers, because women tend to take fewer fares per week and to quit driving for Uber sooner. Experience turns out to have a pretty significant effect on driver income, because the experienced drivers learn when and where to work.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Money doesn't grow on trees dude. The reason Uber took off is that their price point attracted more customers than the taxi companies could with their "reasonable chunks." If Uber and Lyft and the rest go away, that money ain't going to the taxi companies, it's staying in people's wallets and to get where they need to go they take public transit or walk if they're in city centers or drive their own cars if they aren't.
and retired CPA.
I can't understand why he wouldn't see the problem when looking at the offer, why would a CPA have to actually do it to themselves to find the problem?
Re:Amazon's Self-Reinforcing Decline in Hires (Score:5, Insightful)
by Chris Johnson (580)
Sure, a bit. Uber's the same thing. It's designed to make maximum use of crazy people and force the others to live up to that standard or be fired.
I'll define 'crazy Uber people' not as 'danger to customers', but 'people who are bringing more value in terms of vehicle, skill and desire to please, than they are getting back in pay and benefits'. So the crazy Uber person is the one who keeps buying a new Lexus or whatever, vacuums their car three times a day and busts their ass to outperform all the other Uber drivers, so they can continue to win out over anybody else seeking to be a driver.
The key factor is that they are giving more than they get back, in the belief that they're cornering some kind of market or buying in to something important. If you make a business that relies on people like this, you can demolish anybody else because you've worked out how to get voluntary unpaid labor, like the Amazon exec who was said to use her own money to hire subcontractors to do more. As long as there are people who are willing to do that, the market breaks and Amazon/Uber get to do what Wal-Mart did in small towns, break the back of other market participants so they can't break even or continue.
Another way to be a crazy Uber person is to put more depreciation and wear and tear on your car than you can afford to repair (or replace). It's easy to be crazy in these ways. It's externalities which are easy to overlook. These Amazon/Uber business models are designed to leverage that kind of crazy as hard as possible, and kick out everybody who's not willing to lose (one way or another) on the deal. Psychology is useful in getting people to buy into this stuff.
As they say, a cult.
mfwright@batnet.com
The cited number is the median profit per hour, so the study already factored in gas and maintenance expenses.
Sorry, even factoring that in people would not work long for a mere $3/hour, because they could earn MUCH more doing other things. Sorry, but the numbers make no sense unless drivers are making significantly more.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
the numbers when the Fox counts the chickens....
Rick B.
The scientific term you're looking for is not 'coincidence' but 'bullshit'. Every Uber ride carrying a passenger is a car drive not taken by that passenger. Because rideshare drivers do not have to loiter or deadhead like cabdrivers, there is no net contribution to traffic.
Not true. If a taxi is not available sometimes I might suck it up and walk, take a bus. cycle, a train, or not travel. Or I might drive.
The Uber car does not magically come into existence when a transit rider uses it. It already exists.
The edge case: A transit rider takes an Uber instead of taking a train he normally walks to. Because an Uber costs more on the average than a transit ride, people will do this only if they have a toothache or an urgent appointment. Net change in traffic, zero cars, because he is taking an Uber instead of his own ride.
The common case: A transit rider normally drives to the train station, but takes an Uber instead. Zero net change in traffic that day, but a parking place at the station is saved. People living in East Coast cities with on-street parking in the snow where you have to get up at 2 am to move your car because it better not be found in the morning in the same spot where you parked it last night are going to ditch the car and always Uber to the station. Net change: minus one car and plus one parking place at the station.
Again, not true. Standard economic theory contends that this demand for Uber cars will create supply. Initially this may be via drivers using existing cars, but if the money is good enough then it will encourage those who do not have cars to purchase cars to use to pick up passengers.
When to Uber to the station, your own car is still parked at home, rather than being in traffic.
The Uber car is in traffic. In fact it has to get to where you want to be picked up first, then take you to the station, so the amount of traffic is greater.
two people in one car, instead of two people in two cars.
One of those people is only in the car to transport the other, so your point is absurd
But best of all, an increasing number of big-city drivers will decide they no longer need a car at all.
This could be a positive factor.
In fact, this encourages more people to ride transit if a train would save money and/or time on your regular route.
Again, this could be positive
In fact, I predict that rideshare apps will make arrangements with transit operators to include a transit option in ride route displays so riders have the opportunity to save by taking the train over part of their route, rather than Uber the whole way. People will be apt to do this for their regular commute.
You are behind the times. Google maps allows you to hail taxis when journeying.
Standard economic theory contends that this demand for Uber cars will create supply. Initially this may be via drivers using existing cars, but if the money is good enough then it will encourage those who do not have cars to purchase cars to use to pick up passengers.
That's funny. I thought the whole point of this thread is that effective salaries for Uber drivers are so low that you would have to be crazy to go into the business? But yes, what standard econ theory is telling me when I talk to real Uber drivers, rather tah the medallion apologist who started this thread, is that Uber driving is lucrative enough that a certain fraction of the driver population will go into the business of giving rides to others, mostly on a part-time basis. Every Uber ride is a car not driven, replaced by a car containing two or more people. Net traffic saved.
Every Uber ride carrying a passenger is a car drive not taken by that passenger. Because rideshare drivers do not have to loiter or deadhead like cabdrivers, there is no net contribution to traffic.
False.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2014-2016 driving UBER full-time after accounting for expenses, maintenance, depreciation and costs for water, daily cleaning and washes actual cash-flow to the driver came to 87 cents per hour.
Exceptionally, an accident under dispatch which UBER reneged on its coverage which I was forced to pickup under my personal insurance tripled my premium. And the replacement vehicle could not be found for the coverage payout after the car was totaled.
UBER asserts a post-reality view of a world that drives its fleet into bankruptcy. Truth remains that as long as a new crop of drivers-for-hire signup to offset driver turnover losses UBER's view can be legitimate.
Well as long as you don't feel guilty having a near slave driving you around.. I wouldn't do it.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
To simplify things, consider a taxi company paying a driver an hourly wage but otherwise taking responsibility for all other expenses -- the taxi permit ("medallion"), fuel, insurance, car repairs, car replacement.
Compare that to an Uber driver being paid by the trip and otherwise responsible for whatever expenses of the vehicle they use. Are not pizza delivery drivers paid according to a similar model. My simplified taxi model is wage labor for the driver whereas the Uber of pizza driver is running a small business.
Businesses are notoriously difficult to determine the "actual" returns from their operations. Yes, there is GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), but business "succeed" and "fail" all the time and accounting firms continue to collect their fees.
Suppose you are an Uber driver and you deduct only gas against your earnings and net $15/hour -- great deal, huh? Suppose you deduct gas and the full IRS formula for mileage expense (which is not really what it "costs" -- it is a rule that the IRS came up with for a "level playing field" in collecting taxes). You net only $3.50 an hour. Is this a bad decision? Suppose you were given the car by your parents and you want to "monetize" its value by driving for Uber to pay for living expenses until you can establish yourself in a higher paying career?
My point is that a lot of Slashdot commentators are quick to call people stupid about things that are intrinsically complicated. The scary thing is if the people saying "stupid, stupid stupid" are serious software developers. Given the complexity of software systems and the deep levels of design trades in almost every aspect of them, very, very scary.
Well as long as you don't feel guilty having a near slave driving you around.. I wouldn't do it.
Most people don't. But you're just a hypocrite. Poorly paid "slaves" made the computer you're typing on, the food you're eating and the clothes you're wearing. Even if you only buy from hipster shops, those "ethical" businesses don't pay first-world rates for everything they use. Try asking whether the computer they use is made in China. At some point, your money is ending up as "slave" wages. And you know what? That's a good thing, because "slave" wages are better than nothing.
Do you have links to these studies and other released writings?
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
I buy products from China because the economy doesn't allow for viable alternatives. The last time I shopped for a smartphone, there was no brand with same features but made in US for me to price compare. The consumer has no choice where the product comes from. In this you do have a choice, so I challenge you to make the right one.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
What the UC Davis study shows is that in this early phase of ridesharing adoption, when too few people are sure enough that ridesharing is here to stay to give up their own cars if they drive them, the significant effects so far are less bus use and more walking. City buses are the form of mass transit that people find most irksome because of their slowness and frequent stops. Now that Uber is subjecting them to competition, perhaps bus service will finally improve. I can see bus systems meeting the challenge by using smaller, demand-activated vehicles that pick up and drop in response to apps. And that's without even considering the advantage of having rideshare apps that display transit options where available.
The adoption side of the study shows that we are still at the stage when most Uber rides are used to avoid the DUI dragnet and urban parking. Freed-up parking spaces and less drunk driving benefit any city.
By definition an Uber ride, which uses a car, is a car driven (carrying one person wanting to go to somewhere).
That word doesn't mean what you think it means. A slave is a person whose economic and political rights and personal freedoms are legally curtailed and who is forced to work for an owner under threat of corporal punishment. A person who chooses to drive me around in exchange for monetary compensation does not have his right curtailed, is not under threat of physical punishment if he declines to drive me around, and has one vote that he can cast as he choses, same as me.
The concept of "near-slave" does not exist in this country. It is an exercise in hyperbole meant to inflame emotions to cloud over rational thinking. It is a rhetorical trick without merit.
https://web.stanford.edu/~diam...
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
1) Country doesn't do what it should and provide plentiful education and employment opportunities for citizens,
2) Person realizes this, and immediately starts a company that anyone can do (with a little 'good ol USA gumption') where they can get eager employees for $3.72 an hour,
3) Person profits.
People ARE to stupid to realize what is good for them. In the end, someone will work for anything. This does not count as a vote, nor should we allow it to validate the fact that these people are accepting ridiculously low pay because THE GOVERNMENT ISN"T DOING ITS JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE. That doesn't mean Uber gets off scott free. They are disgusting for taking advantage of the situation, not to mention the other things they have done.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
City buses are the form of mass transit that people find most irksome because of their slowness and frequent stops. Now that Uber is subjecting them to competition, perhaps bus service will finally improve. I can see bus systems meeting the challenge by using smaller, demand-activated vehicles that pick up and drop in response to apps.
I agree, and I've written about such repeatedly. But there will be lag time, because autonomous systems are currently expensive. This will lead at least some transit lines to employ full-size autonomous buses instead of shifting immediately to more van- or shuttle-sized vehicles which pose less obstacle to traffic.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"