Quote (Thor123422 @ Aug 20 2020 04:14pm)
Sounds like they're evening the playing field. The Taxi business has always had to abide by these regulations, as long as Uber has existed at least. Uber exploited a new business model and was successful in the time it took government to catch up with regulations. Now they have to do what ever other business does, and deal with the government classifying their employees and their business model and use the money they made in the interim to facilitate that. This is how it always works when new business models spring up. The good ones are the ones who innovate and survive a changing landscape, and that includes a regulatory landscape.
Uber is wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want the freedom to not give benefits to their employees, but also mandate everything about how their employees do their job. That's just not the business landscape we've adopted in the United States because our fundamental economic benefit is derived from our employment. Everything from our retirement accounts to our healthcare is regulated through our workplace. If you want to free businesses like Uber from this you have to fundamentally change the landscape such that these things can be reasonably acquired without being classified as an employee, because right now it can't be. I mean, sure, you could buy your own insurance, but a gig worker isn't gonna be able to afford the 1k a month to have decent healthcare because they have no group negotiating power.
Honestly, this is just another reason we need a national healthcare system. Economic freedom of the workers and freedom of the businesses to not have to provide that benefit.
Except they don't. They are essentially the marketplace or the broker the consumer and the service provider go through to get matched. What exactly is Uber mandating drivers to do? You're a contractor with wheels. You want clients to drive around for money, your gas, insurance, car, while uber provides that market place and takes a cut.
Who exactly are they evening the playing the field for btw? This summer i had extra time and i did door dash a few hours a week here and there. Most people doing Uber/Lyft are in the same category. It's a part time side hustle. Some of these regulations act as drag on the free market and reduce investment. If Uber is forced to pay for fringe benefits then before you know it, it will start to resemble the taxi industry it crushed. Employers can be lean and pass on the savings directly to their consumers which generally is a net good. That's why these companies took over in the first place.
Quote (SBD @ Aug 20 2020 05:30pm)
Ill disagree on this one. Prices should be passed to the consumer, if the price is to high it means the consumer is finding cheaper alternatives that are filling their need. If they want to survive they will alter their business model in a way that works, or perhaps it just does not work, declare bankruptcy and move to the next venture.
If there's an existing demand jobs will simply be moved from one area to the area that is now in demand.
A day of reckoning is coming for these unprofitable tech companies just pissing share allotment money away. Dilution, dilution, debt, debt, debt.
Shit or get off the pot.
There is growing demand to decentralize or offload liability. This is one example. I'm really not sure why a company like Uber coming together with thousands of free lance drivers who can supplement their main income with a side hustle need to be imposed by government in this case. Losers here are going to end up being non-hot spot area consumers and part time drivers at the expense of the few that do this as a career. Investors too but those guys are used to taking it on the chin holding these companies.
This post was edited by ofthevoid on Aug 20 2020 08:34pm