Uber Lyft driver shortage.

[JazzGa 14,654]

3 hours ago, JazmineRice said:

Thank you! It seems the only kind of topic I am able to post at the moment is a "Support" topic. And It doesn't give me the option to post a status.

It's because you need at least 50 reacts on your posts! Since you're almost there, let me spam you with a few      

[Economy 53,090]

8 hours ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

Entitled? Ok after expenses most drivers end up taking home about $9 and hour. 

 

Most of these drivers make about $9 dollars an hour or less with the exception of those living in big cities like NY. It isn't entitled to want a livable wage from a billion dollar corporation. 

Ok then demand more

 

But just remember that if drivers become regular employees or demand more the company can also probably demand more in return to maximize efficiency with available drivers at the right times and control shits more etc

 

The amount of flexibility doing these gigs provides is unusualy high. If ppl start start to demand a lot more from them they can easily say they need to demand a lot more from their drivers

 

This isnt a regular job or contract. U literally join and drive at will when u feel like. Its totally voluntary and u stop when u feel like too. If they are so disgusting dont drive for them. If they didnt exist these gigs wouldnt even exist at all for ppl to do by CHOICE

 

Contracting and being a standard employee are 2 totally different structures with different pros and cons and responsibilities...

 

Ppl wanna cherry pick here. They want wages and benefits of being a regular employee but they dont want the company to make demands of a regular employee and wanna have the benefits that currently exist too and dont want the company to demand what they legally can out of employees. They want the best of both worlds. To me that does sound entitled

 

As for the pay side of it i agree thats low. But if they are gonna raise pay then they will have to have less drivers long term then without the raise because it will encourage more driving. More driving means more competition for for same amlunt of clients which means drivers will be parked on the side longer. They may need more ppl now with reopening again but this is something to consider later too. Im not against demanding a little more in terms of the pay aspect of it but definitely that may mean either less hiring or more control of hours worked to maximize efficiency in capacity as needed

[StarstruckIllusion 53,675]

11 hours ago, pussycat said:

Its olovia rodrigo’s fault

this. we need to unionize against her and bargain for her to cancel OR1 😳😳

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

5 hours ago, Economy said:

Ok then demand more

 

But just remember that if drivers become regular employees or demand more the company can also probably demand more in return to maximize efficiency with available drivers at the right times and control shits more etc

 

The amount of flexibility doing these gigs provides is unusualy high. If ppl start start to demand a lot more from them they can easily say they need to demand a lot more from their drivers

 

This isnt a regular job or contract. U literally join and drive at will when u feel like. Its totally voluntary and u stop when u feel like too. If they are so disgusting dont drive for them. If they didnt exist these gigs wouldnt even exist at all for ppl to do by CHOICE

 

Contracting and being a standard employee are 2 totally different structures with different pros and cons and responsibilities...

 

Ppl wanna cherry pick here. They want wages and benefits of being a regular employee but they dont want the company to make demands of a regular employee and wanna have the benefits that currently exist too and dont want the company to demand what they legally can out of employees. They want the best of both worlds. To me that does sound entitled

 

As for the pay side of it i agree thats low. But if they are gonna raise pay then they will have to have less drivers long term then without the raise because it will encourage more driving. More driving means more competition for for same amlunt of clients which means drivers will be parked on the side longer. They may need more ppl now with reopening again but this is something to consider later too. Im not against demanding a little more in terms of the pay aspect of it but definitely that may mean either less hiring or more control of hours worked to maximize efficiency in capacity as needed

I don't think you understand how this works for the consumer as well. They are down 40 % in drivers which means consumers have to wait Anywhere from 30 to 50minutes for a ride. If that ride happens during peak times they are charged almost triple for a ride because of surge pricing. Happy drivers mean the less wait times for consumers and less cost. The type of consumer that usually takes an Uber cannot spend $70 on a shared ride just to get to work and back. 

It is to the companies detriment to not keep drivers happy and also give them a livable wage. 

At this point I don't even know what your argument is. The companies are going back to giving these incentives to get drivers back on the road. They know these incentives work. My only argument is that they shouldn't have taken them away in the first place. My opinion is that companies that cut wages to please share holders are garbage. If you cannot show profit without cutting wages you deserve to go under. 

[Economy 53,090]

8 hours ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

I don't think you understand how this works for the consumer as well. They are down 40 % in drivers which means consumers have to wait Anywhere from 30 to 50minutes for a ride. If that ride happens during peak times they are charged almost triple for a ride because of surge pricing. Happy drivers mean the less wait times for consumers and less cost. The type of consumer that usually takes an Uber cannot spend $70 on a shared ride just to get to work and back. 

It is to the companies detriment to not keep drivers happy and also give them a livable wage. 

At this point I don't even know what your argument is. The companies are going back to giving these incentives to get drivers back on the road. They know these incentives work. My only argument is that they shouldn't have taken them away in the first place. My opinion is that companies that cut wages to please share holders are garbage. If you cannot show profit without cutting wages you deserve to go under. 

The way uber and lyft work right now make it complicated to do what ur proposing

 

U can offer a lot more per ride but then u will attract a lot more drivers which in turn means drivers will have to compete for a lot more clients. That means more time stopped waiting to get a client which means the hourly wage on average still wont be much higher in the end. Thats part of the reason u have the surge times which encourage more drivers to drive in those moments

 

Now u CAN organize things in a way to pay ur workers more, without causing a surge in prices and keeping supply more or less in tandem with demand...

 

But that goes back to what i was saying before, it would require a more managed system between company and drivers in order to be able to organize things like that. The flexibility that comes with these gigs would be lost. Companies would make more demands over which hours and how many u work and not just when u feel like it and is convinient for u

 

Thats why im saying its demanding. Ppl do want the higher wages and consumer protection but at the same time they dont want to let go of the perks and flexibility and the current system in place. They wanna have their cake and eat it too and that i think is the problem

 

I dont think demanding higher wages or worker benefits in itself is the issue. But ppl have to understand that the system to accomodate would have to be restructured in a way that it would come at a cost of the lot of the perks drivers like

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

Mistake

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

7 minutes ago, Economy said:

The way uber and lyft work right now make it complicated to do what ur proposing

 

U can offer a lot more per ride but then u will attract a lot more drivers which in turn means drivers will have to compete for a lot more clients. That means more time stopped waiting to get a client which means the hourly wage on average still wont be much higher in the end. Thats part of the reason u have the surge times which encourage more drivers to drive in those moments

 

Now u CAN organize things in a way to pay ur workers more, without causing a surge in prices and keeping supply more or less in tandem with demand...

 

But that goes back to what i was saying before, it would require a more managed system between company and drivers in order to be able to organize things like that. The flexibility that comes with these gigs would be lost. Companies would make more demands over which hours and how many u work and not just when u feel like it and is convinient for u

 

Thats why im saying its demanding. Ppl do want the higher wages and consumer protection but at the same time they dont want to let go of the perks and flexibility and the current system in place. They wanna have their cake and eat it too and that i think is the problem

 

I dont think demanding higher wages or worker benefits in itself is the issue. But ppl have to understand that the system to accomodate would have to be restructured in a way that it would come at a cost of the lot of the perks drivers like

Ok, let's keep drivers earning $8 to $9 an hour. I don't care enough about this argument to keep this back an forth with you. 

[LilMonst3r 5,688]

Welp their drivers are just raking up unemployment checks. 

[Economy 53,090]

15 minutes ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

Ok, let's keep drivers earning $8 to $9 an hour. I don't care enough about this argument to keep this back an forth with you. 

Im not saying they should. Ur not getting me. Im saying to get more u cant expect everything else to stay the way it is. Thats what im saying

 

I do think no one deserves to make that low. But im saying thats partially what allows that unusual level of flexibility to begin with

 

Those higher wages will come with strings attached but ppl dont want those strings and i think there lies the problem. They want the higher wages but they want to simultaneously keep the benefits of the current structure. Its not gonna work, its one or the other

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

9 minutes ago, Economy said:

Im not saying they should. Ur not getting me. Im saying to get more u cant expect everything else to stay the way it is. Thats what im saying

 

I do think no one deserves to make that low. But im saying thats partially what allows that unusual level of flexibility to begin with

 

Those higher wages will come with strings attached but ppl dont want those strings and i think there lies the problem. They want the higher wages but they want to simultaneously keep the benefits of the current structure. Its not gonna work, its one or the other

So a person's time and effort is worth less because because their job is flexible. 

Got it thanks.

Just so you know taxi drivers made alot more money before Uber and Lyft. 

[Economy 53,090]

1 minute ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

So a person's time and effort is worth less because because their job is flexible. 

Got it thanks.

Just so you know taxi drivers made alot more money before Uber and Lyft. 

Im not talking about value and effort. Im talking about the reality of economics.

 

And Yes taxi drivers make more. They are given shifts and companies control more tightly who, how much they hire etc.

 

ur proving my point right now about how making these drivers standard employees changes the structure with it and the perks go. 

 

Again its one or the other. Either its a gig and your a contractor, or you are an employee and u get better pay and benefits but company organizes employees more tightly to get more efficiency out of employees

 

Theres pros and cons to both system. U seem to be suggesting uber drivers should get paid the same as taxi drivers but somehow get to keep the same structure. That will not work without huge inneficiency and much higher costs to consumers

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

5 minutes ago, Economy said:

Im not talking about value and effort. Im talking about the reality of economics.

 

And Yes taxi drivers make more. They are given shifts and companies control more tightly who, how much they hire etc.

 

ur proving my point right now about how making these drivers standard employees changes the structure with it and the perks go. 

 

Again its one or the other. Either its a gig and your a contractor, or you are an employee and u get better pay and benefits but company organizes employees more tightly to get more efficiency out of employees

 

Theres pros and cons to both system. U seem to be suggesting uber drivers should get paid the same as taxi drivers but somehow get to keep the same structure. That will not work without huge inneficiency and much higher costs to consumers

Girl I have never paid 70 for a taxi ride in my life. Even from my house in Kendal to Miami Beach. I have paid over $70 in surge pricing during peak hours for Uber. 

Lack of drivers means consumers pay more money and Uber and Lyft need to pay livable wages to keep their drivers. Your way of doing business has cost them their employees and as a result cost the consumer to pay alot more.

You are disproving your point. 

[Economy 53,090]

1 minute ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

Girl I have never paid 70 for a taxi ride in my life. Even from my house in Kendal to Miami Beach. I have paid over $70 in surge pricing during peak hours for Uber. 

Lack of drivers means consumers pay more money. 

You are disproving your point. 

Dude ur so lost. Are u even following what im saying at all? How the hell are u trying to prove me wrong with this statement when i literally JUST said they are not the same structures and i was talking about having TAXI wages with UBER flexibility structure simultaneously

 

I literally was saying higher wages werent the issue it was trying to have the cake and eat it too.

 

I literally just said taxi drivers DO NOT have that structure. They organize the workers they need and shifts etc which is why taxi drivers do not have the same flexibility but makes it possible to have that lay. Uber drivers is different

 

I was talking about about big price inflation for consumers paying then the higher wages while simultanously keeping the same gig structure

 

What u pay for a taxi is irrelevant to what im saying because taxi drivers are NOT under that structure. If u think that proves ur point ur not following what im saying at all

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

Dude ur so lost. Are u even following what im saying at all? How the hell are u trying to prove me wrong with this statement when i literally JUST said they are not the same structures and i was talking about having TAXI wages with UBER flexibility structure simultaneously

 

I literally was saying higher wages werent the issue it was trying to have the cake and eat it too.

 

I literally just said taxi drivers DO NOT have that structure. They organize the workers they need and shifts etc which is why taxi drivers do not have the same flexibility but makes it possible to have that lay. Uber drivers is different

 

I was talking about about big price inflation for consumers paying then the higher wages while simultanously keeping the same gig structure

 

What u pay for a taxi is irrelevant to what im saying because taxi drivers are NOT under that structure. If u think that proves ur point ur not following what im saying at all

I think you are trying to sell a dated idea of how companies should be run where employees are considered and expense and as such can be cut at the whim of a CEO catering to share holders. While I'm letting you know that it's not 1980 anymore and companies need to invest in employ retention inorder to keep their customers and have less turn around of unhappy employees. A company can be profitable with a structure like Uber and still pay a livable wage to an employee. It's not a one or the other situation and like I said before if it is a one or the other situation.

A livable wage should not detour a billion dollar company from being profitable. 

 

[Economy 53,090]

29 minutes ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

I think you are trying to sell a dated idea of how companies should be run where employees are considered and expense and as such can be cut at the whim of a CEO catering to share holders. While I'm letting you know that it's not 1980 anymore and companies need to invest in employ retention inorder to keep their customers and have less turn around of unhappy employees. A company can be profitable with a structure like Uber and still pay a livable wage to an employee. It's not a one or the other situation and like I said before if it is a one or the other situation.

A livable wage should not detour a billion dollar company from being profitable. 

 

Ok. But to compete with a taxi under that structure they woulnt still have to charge more than taxi. Its simple math that wont add up for them to charge the same yet have a more expensive employee system

 

Ppl also exagerate how much money these companies have. The "billion" dollar fiigures are valuations not profits. They cannot be interpreted as the actual money being made to pay out. A typical stock trades anywhere between 15X to 17X actual earnings and that distinction needs to be made. If a company is worth $1 Billion valuation wise (i know Uber is way more than that) its actual annual earnings is probably more like $75 Million or $100 Million 

 

Also u have to look at the scale too then break it down per employee and unit if business. Any business that does business on a very large scale will make revenue that seems like a lot in total numbers but break it down by unit on the margin its not always as high as one thinks. While theres a few outliers and top performers like Apple for example that some quarters can make as much as 30% of revenue as profit, a more typical for the average Corporation is more like 5% to 10%. If executive pay wasnt so high u might be abke to eek out another 1% to 2% on most of them

 

That doesnt mean there isnt room for better pay and distribution. Capitalism and greed and exploitation go hand in hand and u dont have to convince me of that im well aware. And i do think ppl should be getting livable wages

 

But theres also this idealistic extreme from some where they seem to think companies are also this bottomless pit of cash. Its not quite like that either. Things have to be kept in perspective. Justified distaste for inequality doesnt mean exagerating expectations to the other extreme makes it any more plausible. Math is very unforgiving, it is what it is, you cant change it if stuff doesnt add up

 

In this case the uber system is less organized and controlled than the shifts and hiring structure of a taxi. They cannot be as cheap as taxis if they paid the same as taxis but kept the current system at the same time they did that. So its one or the other it cant be both at the same time