Uber Lyft driver shortage.

[username9384747 201]

I rely on Uber for so many reasons, if it closes down because of bankruptcy or something, I’ll be heartbroken.

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

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

$75 million  I'm pretty sure it is at $750 million net. It's not 2012 you know. 

[AJRocketMan 2,684]

On 4/8/2021 at 7:54 PM, Rj Barker said:

5 dollars for a lemonade?! I'm shook. I'd expect 10 litres of it for 5 dollars

It includes the delivery fees. 5 dollars for a 16 - 20 oz serving of lemonade isn’t that surprising or ridiculous if it’s handmade and you’re at a nice restaurant. Anything smaller yeah, that’s a lot.

[AJRocketMan 2,684]

3 hours 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. 

You’re really not getting it. He’s not advocating against paying drivers more, but there’s actually a reason things are the way they are with Uber and Lyft. He’s explaining it very clearly and thoroughly in my view.

[AJRocketMan 2,684]

2 hours 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. 

 

Taxi businesses generally don’t have shareholders. They’re private companies/independent businesses, so they don’t have any stock or rely on investors (meaning a loan needed to be taken out to start them). Uber and Lyft unfortunately started by being capitally funded (they had investors), meaning they take financial priority. Businesses that take out loans and receive grants when starting out tend to pay better wages (this is not always the case though!) since they have more freedom and control over how to run their own business.

[AJRocketMan 2,684]

2 hours ago, Munchlax said:

I rely on Uber for so many reasons, if it closes down because of bankruptcy or something, I’ll be heartbroken.

That cat is so cute 😭

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

37 minutes ago, AJRocketMan said:

You’re really not getting it. He’s not advocating against paying drivers more, but there’s actually a reason things are the way they are with Uber and Lyft. He’s explaining it very clearly and thoroughly in my view.

Girl, the company is right now offering the incentives to lure drivers back. They can do it. That is what the article says. They are offering $250 million to get drivers back. 

There is no reason why they should take it away after the drivers return. It is literally a pay cut. 

[CameronSpears 2,147]

My mom and my neighbor both use to drive for Uber, and once the pandemic hit they both have stopped and neither one of them are planning on returning. My mom did it because it was good for extra money, but she says it's not worth it anymore either.

[CameronSpears 2,147]

Also let me add that Uber treated their drivers like ****. My mom had to call them a few times because of problems on the app where people weren't getting paid and they basically told my mom she would just have to deal with it until they fixed it soon. ROT!

[Economy 52,910]

6 hours ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

$75 million  I'm pretty sure it is at $750 million net. It's not 2012 you know. 

I wasnt talkimg about uber specifically cuz i dont know where its at. I was only giving u an example to show u how the math works for actual profits vs valuations

 

I think u keep taking what im saying out of context in every single reply i make

[Economy 52,910]

5 hours ago, JusKeepBreathin said:

Girl, the company is right now offering the incentives to lure drivers back. They can do it. That is what the article says. They are offering $250 million to get drivers back. 

There is no reason why they should take it away after the drivers return. It is literally a pay cut. 

Because right now theres a shortage after the shrinking of industry in pandemic and they are willing to take a loss right now to do it

 

Also, once more drivers do come back more competiton per customer will exost among drivers again. More time sitting and waiting for a customer means less pay per hour because of this structure that doesnt control how many ppl work and when.

 

I dont know whats so difficult to understand about that concept

[Luc 4,776]

On 4/9/2021 at 1:26 AM, Economy said:

I just dont see whats so terrible or inhumane about cutting bonuses when they dont need as much active staff. Most companies dont even pay bonuses

 

considering these uber type businesses are businesses almost anyone can join unconditionally provided u have a license and decent car, and you can work whatever hours you please and stop when you please and its all by choice at your will i find ppl rather demanding with these businesses

 

Some of these calls ppl are mamong to make drivers like regular type employees, if that were to come into law they could just as easily say a company doesnt have to give workers this much flexibility in hours or in who gets hired and start to make more demands back at the ppl working for them

 

I think as long as these are gigs that are as flexible as they are and ppl join by choice at will it sounds a little entitled to me to get apalled if they take away bonuses they never had to offer to begin with in the first place

I work as an ubereats deliverer sometimes (I love cycling around town and going to restaurants, might as well earn money with it), and the bonuses are simply necessary. Only with these bonuses do you average out at minimum wage. Effectively, you earn less than minimum wage during off-peak hours and higher than minimum wage during peak hours thanks to these bonuses. But if you don't give people a minimum wage they will simply look for a different job that does, and now they're facing the consequences. Good for them.

[Economy 52,910]

3 minutes ago, Luc said:

I work as an ubereats deliverer sometimes (I love cycling around town and going to restaurants, might as well earn money with it), and the bonuses are simply necessary. Only with these bonuses do you average out at minimum wage. Effectively, you earn less than minimum wage during off-peak hours and higher than minimum wage during peak hours thanks to these bonuses. But if you don't give people a minimum wage they will simply look for a different job that does, and now they're facing the consequences. Good for them.

No i get that. As i was telling the other user i dont think a little more money is a bad idea... but i was saying i dont think realistically u can expect the same as a taxi or regular job under uber structure

 

With no control over who works what hours and if the pay is good there will always be more people drawn to it then they need which means too much competitiom for clients in most markets which means to pay at all when ur just sitting

 

Of course theres a shortage now given the amount of business shrank during shutdowns. Thats typical of any industry that has a big bust then a big bunce, workers are gone and need to come back

[Luc 4,776]

Just now, Economy said:

No i get that. As i was telling the other user i dont think a little more money is a bad idea... but i was saying i dont think realistically u can expect the same as a taxi or regular job under uber structure

 

With no control over who works what hours and if the pay is good there will always be more people drawn to it then they need which means too much competitiom for clients in most markets which means to pay at all when ur just sitting

 

Of course theres a shortage now given the amount of business shrank during shutdowns. Thats typical of any industry that has a big bust then a big bunce, workers are gone and need to come back

The problem with your line of reasoning is that you're taking market orthodoxy as a given. The reason why we have a minimum wage is that people are prepared to work for less than it and companies would love to pay less than minimum wage, but the workers won't be able to pay their bills. Indeed because Uber also attracts people like me (hobbyists, students, elderly) they can offer lower wages, but the reality is that there is no way to make a living off of Uber alone, especially because it's quite an exhausting job that you can do maybe max 20 hours a week, and thus it should be regulated because society should ensure that everyone who works can pay their bills.

Also, the idea that drivers have so much flexibility is not true. Incentives are given such that you drive when Uber wants you to drive. It's not that you think "hey, today's a nice sunny day and I'm not doing anything with friends, let's do this". No, it's "today is the day after New Years Eve and even though I'm completely hungover, it's cold, it's dark and it's raining, I'm going to drive because the incentives are so big". In the end it's the demand for drivers that dictates whether drivers drive, not the personal preferences of drivers. This "freedom" is a farce.

[Economy 52,910]

5 hours ago, Luc said:

The problem with your line of reasoning is that you're taking market orthodoxy as a given. The reason why we have a minimum wage is that people are prepared to work for less than it and companies would love to pay less than minimum wage, but the workers won't be able to pay their bills. Indeed because Uber also attracts people like me (hobbyists, students, elderly) they can offer lower wages, but the reality is that there is no way to make a living off of Uber alone, especially because it's quite an exhausting job that you can do maybe max 20 hours a week, and thus it should be regulated because society should ensure that everyone who works can pay their bills.

Also, the idea that drivers have so much flexibility is not true. Incentives are given such that you drive when Uber wants you to drive. It's not that you think "hey, today's a nice sunny day and I'm not doing anything with friends, let's do this". No, it's "today is the day after New Years Eve and even though I'm completely hungover, it's cold, it's dark and it's raining, I'm going to drive because the incentives are so big". In the end it's the demand for drivers that dictates whether drivers drive, not the personal preferences of drivers. This "freedom" is a farce.

If there is enough control over hours ppl work to not have too many ppl when its  not needed with the benefits system then that helps

 

But im still wondering to what extent wont higher pay attract more drivers, and then u have too many drivers and then u still end up not making as much as u like cuz ur competing for clients and then spend a lot of time not actually driving

 

The only way i see more pay not resulting in this side effect under the uber system that offers more flexibility is if they put more strict restrictions on the amount of people they hire and do their best to prevent eccessive drivers that arent needed