Hacker News Reader

Comment by mav3rick | Hacker News Reader

This is pretty much delusional. Most people are dependent on ride sharing in SF for even menial tasks.

Yep. Obviously this is anecdotal and limited to my own social circles, but I live in the Bay Area, and almost everyone (90%+) I know in San Francisco does not own a car. The ones that do own cars only use them if they need to get out of the city (within the city they bike/scooter/walk/Uber/Lyft/transit).

When I did the math, if I lived in the city it would be cheaper to use rideshare everywhere and rent cars when needed, than to own a car.

Do you seriously believe that the average SF resident is being chauffeured around every day?

Yes. The price for a bus or MUNI is 2.50, if you're lucky that a station is close to you. Average Uber pool prices are around 4 for anything within a 3 mile radius.

we probably don't live in the same city. Everytime I open uber to get anywhere in the city, UberX is in the [12-30] range and UberPool in the [6-20] range. I very rarely see anything less than 6$ nowadays.

So yes, taking muni for 2.50$ or using an electrical scooter for 3-4$ makes sense to me. Or even walking. If it's 2 miles that is about 20-30 minutes which ends up being the same time as a Uber.

Most people don't have MUNI near them. Also try riding scooters on a really windy day

Muni monthly pass for an adult is $85. A round trip commute pays for itself within two weeks not including any other trips. 95% of the city is covered and anything that isn't is within reasonable walking distance. Unlike any business, its nearly guaranteed cities will always subsidize the real cost. The average resident is not as dependent on Uber as you assume.

Exactly. People saying this are unable to separate growth investment from core profitability. Uber or Lyft can pull out of money losing long tail markets, cut down staff to may be just 500 and would run just fine but would immediately become immensely profitable. However price to pay would be growth stagnation and robustness against future unknowns. For now they are doing the right thing to lose money to win the market share and diversity into other logistic businesses as well as prepare for future where autonomous vehicles would be the norm.

You are generalising the case of San Francisco as if the rest of the world was payed $150K a year and was able to throw wads of cash to buy groceries in Uber cars.

The bubble is quite amazing. Outside of a very small number of cities (and even there it's probably largely confined to the upper end of income), most locals do not routinely take taxis/Uber on a daily, weekly, or probably even monthly basis.

The typical American owns a car that is probably a number of years old and drives to the grocery store to buy food which they cook at home.

It's still amazing to me to see that people don't realize the Bay Area//New York//Seattle are micro bubbles that don't represent the world or even the united states.

Yes, people in those cities are mainly rich Yuppies that don't mind throwing away money. Everywhere else I always try to remember that most people (70% I think) wouldn't be able to cover a 400$ unexpected expense.

Most people in SF or NYC don't own an car. Unlike "yuppies" outside. For them ride-sharing is factored into monthly expenses.

Please be respectful while engaging.

I didn't justify Uber based on SF. I just told the Uber usage patterns I see in the city

Reply on news.ycombinator.com