Hacker News Reader

Comment by curtis3389 | Hacker News Reader

> At the heart of the move, say the two companies, is a six-year-old pay rule in New York that, among other things, requires firms like Uber and Lyft to pay drivers for the idle time they rack up between rides.

Remember, Uber and Lyft were created to get around labor laws, and here we see the companies continuing to try to skirt labor laws. It is a standard move of capitalists to fight regulations tooth and nail to try to protect their profit margins. These are fundamentally unprofitable businesses built on exploiting vulnerable workers.

View on HN

If this were true, how would you explain that both drivers and riders enter into the relationship voluntarily. Most of my uber drivers have been intelligent and knowledgeable about their options - quite the opposite of exploited and vulnerable.

How do you explain a College Student with no disposable income signing up for a Credit Card?

I drove for Uber/Lyft for a while. I fully understood I was converting the equity in my car into meals and rent. Most people don't get that at all.

Adults are free to make a wide array of legal, ethical, but nevertheless terrible decisions. An example is poor dietary choices.

All jobs are a conversion of time/skill/knowledge/strength/etc. into a fungible token, money. That fungible token is then used to meet other needs: food and shelter being top of the list. In many parts of the developing world, a person cannot eat if they don't work that day.

In the best case scenario, you come out ahead - where the resources you put in are returned n-fold. An I-Banker grinding out 80+ hour weeks is giving up time with friends and family and perhaps compromising health. Is that person exploited?

Anybody who has driven for a ride sharing company understands that their vehicle will take on excess wear-and-tear and they have to pay for gas. They presumably compare against other jobs and pick ride sharing driver freely.

I would say it is rather condescending to refer to adults making informed decisions in their own self-interest as vulnerable and exploited.

> They presumably compare against other jobs and pick ride sharing driver freely.

That's like saying people presumably read EULAs before agreeing to them. We have a system where we pretend everyone is a rational actor while teaching them none of the skills that would let them actually behave as such. Is there any high school that covers economic topics like depreciation and opportunity cost?

>Most people don't get that at all.

What makes you think that?

Let’s put it this way, second time I drive for Lyft, it was with a free car. They provided the rental for $180/week and waived the rent if I met a ride quota. Driving about 60hrs/week my check from them was about $650 per week. Fuel was about $250 per week. Before taxes, had to deal with that on my own. And I figured out how to surge-mine the bar closings on the weekends.

If someone during the current period of time can’t figure out they can do similar money for less time at McDonald’s, they do not possess the financial literacy required to “get that”.

Seems like they are following the letter of the law.

Uber was created because taxis blew due to corruption. It should not cost 100k to become a taxi driver, that was absolutely insane.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com