I think the entire question is distorted right now by the fact that they've been in massive growth mode for years so we don't actually know what the equilibrium of the gig economy looks like in many markets.
Like, I think there are interesting broader questions here about regulation and the social safety net -- but I think we need to be clear that Uber is basically a payday loan on your car's title. People are bad at understanding depreciating assets.
Maybe if there were a stronger social safety net there would only be a labor market for drivers for whom Uber is actually a good fit? It's certainly possible.
This is simply untrue. Cars do depreciate, but not so much to make the whole business unprofitable.
A double digit percent of the Uber drivers (probably even close to half of all) drive in rented vehicles. Hertz for example has a program[1] where you pay $200-300/week for renting a practically new vehicle. This makes the depreciation costs explicit to the driver. I think Hertz has some pretty good experience with valuing vehicle depreciation. Assuming Uber drivers do 1000-2000 miles a week, Hertz rate translates to something like $.10-.20 per mile in vehicle depreciation & maintenance. A non insignificant cost, but hardly a deal-breaker.
Maybe if there were a stronger social safety net there would only be a labor market for drivers for whom Uber is actually a good fit?
Maybe now there are drivers for whom Uber is actually good fit? Have you talked to your drivers? In my experience, most of them are pretty happy about the arrangement in general, and the only complaint is low rates.
[1] - https://www.hertz.com/rentacar/misc/index.jsp?targetPage=ube...