
Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio’s plan to rein them in - jseliger
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/22/9015443/bill-de-blasio-uber
======
dang
All: Whether Uber needs reining in or not, HN threads about Uber do. They have
reliably been turning into flamewars. It's time this stopped.

Kindly control yourselves, whatever your views. This is a place for thoughtful
discussion, not venting.

------
jrockway
I don't really like Uber's business practices but they do fill an essential
niche in New York City.

A couple years ago, the city allowed independent car services to paint their
cars green and take street hails. They previously did this, of course, but it
wasn't legal. And of course, not every "black car" became a green cab, so this
still happens. It's the standard way to get around the outer boroughs of New
York.

I watched a very common event unfold the other day in Brooklyn Heights. A
woman hailed a green cab. It pulled over and the driver opened the window,
asking "where to?" The woman mentioned an address in Manhattan. The driver
said, "sorry, green cabs can't go to Manhattan" and drove away.

That is 100% false. Like yellow cabs, green cabs have to take you anywhere in
the five boros, but they're reluctant to take you to Manhattan because they
aren't allowed to pick up fares there. They have to drive back to Brooklyn
empty and not make any money, so they lie to customers to avoid that. The end
result is that you still can't get a taxi in most of New York City, at least
one that will pick you up near where you live and take you exactly where you
want to go.

The "ridesharing services" rectify this problem; I've never had an Uber driver
refuse to take me anywhere. If the licensed taxis want to be free from
competition, they need to follow their own rules.

Anyway, this Forbes article about green cabs tells the exact same story:
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngiuffo/2013/09/30/nycs-
new-g...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngiuffo/2013/09/30/nycs-new-green-
taxis-what-you-should-know/2/)

~~~
sillygeese
> _A couple years ago, the city allowed independent car services to paint
> their cars green and take street hails._

Does anyone else see the absurdity in that? Compare to: _" In 2014, the city
allowed people to wear green socks"_

If you want to transport people for a fee, what rational, moral justification
is there for anyone to intervene in that? -To decide what colour your car
should be, or where you can pick up customers?

~~~
mhaymo
The road is a limited common resource, and it's difficult to directly charge
drivers per their usage of it, so the local government uses other forms of
regulation.

~~~
yummyfajitas
It's not difficult at all. Gas taxes pretty much pay for this. Congestion
charges also work nicely in cities.

~~~
arbitrage
Gas taxes are less equitable now with more electric vehicles.

~~~
yummyfajitas
As electric cars become more common, we can lower gas taxes to the point that
they only cover environmental externalities and switch to a weight x mileage
tax for roads.

(Mileage to be measured at vehicle inspection time and incorporated in
registration fees.)

------
bko
Whatever you think about Uber, you have to realize that de Blasio's actions
are not about congestion or the public's interest.

Let's not forget his original plan to have the city pre-approve upgrades to
ride-hailing apps:

> The mayor’s plan to require Uber Technologies Inc., Lyft Inc. and other
> ride-hailing services to get city approval for upgrades to the user
> interface on smartphone apps -- and to pony up $1,000 each time they do --
> has rankled a broad swath of companies, with 27 signing a letter protesting
> his plan.

[http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-28/tech-c...](http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-28/tech-
champion-de-blasio-under-fire-on-plan-to-regulate-uber-apps)

~~~
HappyTypist
This is very similar to BitLicense which is also born in new York. It's
unfortunate that they are heavily against permissionless innovation which had
created $4 and $40 billion markets.

------
dbcooper
Caught a taxi tonight in Paris. 5 euro but jacked up to a minimum of 7, driver
claimed he couldn't give me change. He spent 5 minutes pretending to have no
change, then gave me 2 euros in coins plus a 10 in exchange for a 20. Great.

Taxi services have practically begged for Uber etc to destroy them.

~~~
DarthMader
When you have French taxi drivers willing to injure, threaten, assault just
for working for a competitor, it's no surprise that some of them resort to
shenanigans like this.

------
JumpCrisscross
There was un-coördinated public outreach, too. It may be unmerited
graciousness, but a council member and a senior City administrator each told
me, on separate occasions, that I swung their position on the bill.

New Yorkers have shit to do and places to go. I'm fine with paying for a
congestion charge. But it needs to be fairly applied across traffic. Engaging
regulators and - in a balanced and sensible way - poking them in their flabby
spots, when warranted, is a well-tread feature of democracy. If you care about
something, reach out to your local representatives.

Disclaimer: I don't work, nor ever have worked, for Uber. Neither do I hold a
position in their stock, _et cetera_. I am a frequent rider. I've had many
severely upsetting experiences with yellow cabs.

------
danieltillett
The thing about Uber I don’t understand is how they are going to defend their
monopoly once they acquire it. Assuming they eventually win all the legal
battles and drive all other taxi and taxi-like services out of business then
how are they going to stop anyone else from entering their market?

Each transport market is effectively isolated (you don’t hail a driver from SF
to get around NYC). This means any new entrant can achieve critical mass in a
market at a relatively low cost (especially if they start with small
towns/cities). If Uber do manage to get to the point where they can start
extracting monopoly profits they have no means of defending these markets
other than competing on unit price. Consumers are going to win big time out of
Uber, but I can’t see how their investors will (at least their long term
investors). Someone far smarter than me must have answered this?

~~~
dylanjermiah
It is rare to see, of not impossible, a real monopoly in a free market. Uber
has to compete to win customers, if they artificially raise their prices to
where people will not pay, people will choose a different form of
transportation.

~~~
pbreit
I think Ubers monopoly will be at least as strong as Ebay's in online
auctions. There's a humongous liquidity advantage.

~~~
dylanjermiah
The common definition of 'monopoly' is the sole provider of a good or service.
I doubt very much that Uber can ever achieve that. I much prefer 'market
share', I think it's the most accurate term. Aside from that, I do see some
parallels with eBay.

------
pbreit
More accurate headline: De Blasio legislative threat successful in persuading
Uber to turn over data at 11th hour.

California wasn't able to get that result with its $7m fine.

~~~
onewaystreet
Not really, defeating the cap was much more important to Uber than the data
access.

~~~
greenyoda
They haven't defeated the cap yet. According to the article, there will be no
cap while a four-month study proceeds, and a cap may still be imposed,
depending on the conclusions of the study:

 _The city will conduct a four-month study on the effect of Uber and other
for-hire vehicle operators on the city’s traffic and environment.

While the study is being conducted, de Blasio won't seek to cap the number of
new vehicles Uber or other car services can put on the road. But de Blasio
administration officials say a cap is still a possibility in the future._

~~~
onewaystreet
That's just political face-saving.

------
joemaller1
In the last few years NYC has closed stretches of Broadway (a significant
north-south corridor) to traffic, squeezed vehicle lane widths to add bike
lanes and introduced several measures to slow or impede traffic so the city is
safer for pedestrians. These are all _very good_ things, but they come with a
cost.

Reducing the surface area of roads does not magically remove cars from the
roads, it just creates congestion and traffic.

If anything, Uber's model would seem to reduce traffic since their cars are
more deliberate vs. taxis' aimlessly wandering.

NYC should try to figure out how to partner with Uber. Taxi's are already
expensive enough to be something of a luxury (though filthy), Uber is a far
better experience.

~~~
mason55
> _Reducing the surface area of roads does not magically remove cars from the
> roads, it just creates congestion and traffic._

Most traffic theory maintains that this actually does magically reduce
traffic. People who would have driven now decide that there's too much traffic
and find another way. Similarly, expanding highways doesn't reduce congestion,
the number of cars just increases to the previous levels of congestion.

------
vasilipupkin
There is a restaurant in Chicago called El Ideas
[http://www.eater.com/2015/4/27/8486425/phillip-foss-el-
ideas...](http://www.eater.com/2015/4/27/8486425/phillip-foss-el-ideas-
chicago)

It's in a neighborhood that has no cabs and driving there not pleasant or
convenient. Last night the chef told me if it wasn't for Uber, they probably
wouldn't have survived

~~~
tzs
Why did they put their restaurant in a location that depends on a single,
possibly illegal, transportation service to get their customers to them? Was
that location easier to get to when they opened?

~~~
eru
In theory, they should pay lower rent for a bad location. Uber, in driving up
their profits, should in the longer term also drive up their rent. The
landlord will eat all the advantage eventually.

~~~
vasilipupkin
it won't drive up their rent, because it's a really not a great neighborhood
and doesn't show any sign of improving

~~~
eru
Neighbourhood with Uber is commercially better than neighbourhood without
Uber. Thus, rent should go up.

~~~
vasilipupkin
maybe, but it will stay ridiculously low for reasons unrelated to Uber

------
JohnTHaller
Does this mean Uber's daily spam robocalls from "Molly" to New York City
residents that offer no option to be removed from the list or speak to a live
person will stop?

~~~
twright0
If this is what they were actually doing, and not hyperbole, I suspect you
would have a reasonable case to fill out an FCC complaint - see their "Rules
and Resources for Dealing with Unwanted Calls and Texts" at
[https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-
us/articles/2028738...](https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-
us/articles/202873880-Rules-and-Resources-for-Dealing-with-Unwanted-Calls-and-
Texts)

~~~
JohnTHaller
I've gotten several. I still have one recorded in voicemail. It likely
wouldn't matter since Uber would call it a "political" call, thus utilizing
one of the loopholes so they can spam the heck out of your phone number. All
they accomplished by calling me over and over and over is ensuring that I'll
never use their service.

Vonage's auto-translate results for the curious: "Hi it's Molly with Huber and
we need your help. We ended the days when you couldn't get a ride home because
cab didn't wanna leave Manhattan now married to blog Theo is trying to bring
the bad old days back because his millionaire taxi donors are telling him to
why on earth would your council member. Ever consider voting for something
like that. They should stand up for you. Not orders from the mayor your
council member is sponsoring this bill and we need your voice. Please call
your council number and tell them to take their name off of mayor-to-bother-
as(?) an title bird(?) because you and all New Yorkers deserve a reliable
transportation. Paid for by Huber 212-257-1745." "

------
josh2600
Can't stop, won't stop.

Uber continues to amaze me with their incredibly skillful political
maneuvering. They seem to have roadblocks thrown in their way at every turn
and they manage to just keep trucking. Heads down, eyes on the prize; it's
really quite impressive to watch. I have to believe it starts at the top with
a tunnel vision approach to revenue growth. It's like that old Al Davis quote
"Just win baby!".

Whether you agree with what they're doing or not, it is incredible to watch
their execution.

~~~
rquantz
Yes, a company with an illegal business model stayed under the radar until
they got big enough that they could combat the legal challenges to their
illegal business model. Always a pleasure to watch.

~~~
marssaxman
When their business model is only illegal due to a corrupt, inefficient,
entrenched monopoly which is just as hostile to its customers as its
employees, yes, it is indeed a pleasure to watch someone take on the machine
and win.

~~~
ethanbond
This seems like a non-sequitur. The business model was made illegal by people
who were voted into office to make business models like these illegal.

Uber isn't wrong to push the letter of the law, but no one should be surprised
that it will take a little bit of time for the law to adapt to this. Uber's
vicious and cavalier attitude towards law in general is really disgraceful.

This seems like a classic "ends justify the means" type of scenario, and I'm
generally skeptical of these.

~~~
waterlesscloud
It's just a hunch at this point, but I suspect the end game for personal
transportation a few decades down the road will be government-provided rides.

Cities, counties, whatever municipal entities providing autonomous vehicles at
subsidized rates, or maybe even "free". These are the entities paying for the
infrastructure, after all, and once voters don't own vehicles, the argument
will start to be made that governments should operate what what runs on the
infrastructure.

But that's decades away, and there's money to be made now, in the current
system. And Uber/Lyft/Google whoever else is in the business may provide the
tech to the governments.

Anyway, like I said, it's just a hunch at this point, but it won't surprise me
if things slowly move that way.

~~~
toomuchtodo
This is the future I want to see.

------
xacaxulu
No matter what Uber does, they always please me with stuff like this. It makes
the anarch-libertarian blood run warm to see government cronies routinely
bested and consumers offered superior services in a market that was ripe for
innovation. Now we need this type of disruption in health care and education.

~~~
mdpopescu
It started in education with Khan Academy and the like, but there's still a
lot of work to be done. As for health care... it is one of my fondest wishes
for a large company like Google to come up with a medical expert system that
can solve even half of the "take two pills and come back in two days"
consultation that currently cost me $50.

~~~
dragonwriter
> it is one of my fondest wishes for a large company like Google to come up
> with a medical expert system that can solve even half of the "take two pills
> and come back in two days" consultation that currently cost me $50.

AFAIK, this is not a technical problem; such solutions have existed for quite
a while. Drug control laws, laws governing scope of practice of various
classes of health care providers, and insurance rules all require that, even
if your diagnosis and recommended treatment come out of such a system, its
done under the authority of a provider with a particular kind of license with
a particular degree of contact.

~~~
mdpopescu
Absolutely agreed; I was reading about such medical expert systems in the 80s.
I know it's a political issue... unfortunately, I don't see anything smaller
than an Apple or Google able to take on it.

A possible alternative might be a startup willing to offer such services to
third-world countries that have really bad medical systems (which in turn
would mean not enough political power to prevent it). Unfortunately, I don't
know if there are enough money in such a venture - definitely nowhere near the
current "get $1B quickly" trend.

------
backtoyoujim
Does anyone on HN "work" for either of Uber or Lyft?

There seems to be a lot "uber workers this" and "lyft workers that" without
much substance.

~~~
Karunamon
I drive for Uber in my spare time as of a few weeks ago - they just started
serving Cheyenne for Frontier Days (and I'm hoping they keep the service on
after that, though I'm not sure the demand is gonna be there)

(That is, for the precisely _one_ ride I've gotten.. Something in the backend
appears broken and nobody can request rides even though I'm online, and
support hasn't been helpful on this >_<)

Can answer any questions you have, but I doubt there's going to be a lot to
answer. Signing up as a driver and doing what you gotta do is a pretty
straightforward process.

~~~
kazinator
Spare time, what? Aren't you guys ruled to be _employees_ in some
jurisdiction, which makes it employment? :)

------
tlogan
I have one question for somebody knowledgeable about this market.

Why companies like YellowCab do not offer something similar to Uber? They
developed the app but the app is jut front end to dispatcher: so there is no
guarantee that cab will actually come (I tried it).

For example, ability to pre-pay taxi via iPhone so that there is guarantee
that cab will actually pick me up. Or maybe hailing taxi via iPhone? Or
something like Lyft Line?

Is management of cab companies to blame? Or is it taxi drivers?

------
mikeash
Most of my exposure to Uber has been negative articles about them. I've used
them a handful of times, but not for a couple of years, until just this week.

I used them to get to and from the airport for a trip this week, and it was
pretty interesting to compare with what I've been reading.

First, of course, the experience as a user was great. This is no surprise, but
it sure does cement my desire to use them over any other service. I wanted to
avoid taxis at all costs. I was ready to drive to the airport twice each way
to handle all 8 people who were going, and pay for parking, rather than deal
with that. I've done it before and wow, it just sucks. You call and get a
surly dispatcher, you have no idea where your car is until it arrives, it
might just not show up, credit cards are a joke, you have to figure out what
to tip, etc. Uber was great. Hail in the app, see within seconds exactly where
your car is and who's driving it, track them all the way, get in, ride, then
get out on the other end and go, without even needing to explicitly pay. It
just works! Even getting two different cars at 5AM in the suburbs was no
problem. No cars were available at first, but within a few minutes they
appeared.

I'll note that it's not just taxis who are problematic. I also checked into
Super Shuttle, because heck, there's so many of us that we should be able to
get a whole van at a good price. Checking on their web site, I thought that's
how it would be. They wanted $28 plus $10/person, which worked out to quite a
bit cheaper than four Uber rides (two each way). And we'd all go together,
cool! Of course, it turns out that this is the price for _each way_ , so the
actual price would be double. They are pretty careful not to make this clear
until very late in their reservation process. To be fair, all the info is
there if you pay very close attention, but they make it extremely easy to
assume that the quoted price is the whole thing. Compare with Uber, which is
happy to give me a pretty precise quote, and matched it (near the low end!)
all four times.

OK, we know all this. It's a great service (unless you get a bad driver who
attacks you or something) but it's built on the backs of the poor oppressed
drivers. Except both drivers I talked to were ecstatic about Uber and loved
doing what they do. One was relatively new on the job, having been an
assistant manager at a pizza place until a few months ago. He started out
doing Uber part time, then graduated to full time once it became apparent that
it was the better choice. The other one has been doing it for about two years.
He bought a brand new Toyota just to drive for UberX, and he's put over 60,000
miles on it since then. He loves the flexibility (apparently he's somewhat "on
call" to help family members out doing various things, and when he needs to
help them he just signs out of Uber, goes off and does whatever tasks this
involves, and signs back in) and the money is pretty good. He usually hangs
around downtown DC on weekends and makes good money accumulating lots of short
trips, but hangs out doing occasional airport runs on other days to earn a bit
more.

So they're good with customers, they seem to be great with drivers, and all I
have left is a vague sense of unease at how they approach regulations, by
basically barging in and ignoring them. Except they're totally on the up-and-
up in Virginia now, having reached an accommodation with the relevant
authorities to be completely above-board.

After all the stuff I've read about them over the years, I felt a little
guilty using Uber for this trip, but practicality won out. The guilty feeling
didn't last.

Edit: I forgot to mention, the second guy, with the new Toyota, previously
drove a cab. It was awful, and says he tries to convince his cabbie friends to
switch to Uber at every opportunity. They charged him $150/day to drive for
them no matter what. No fares? Fuck you, pay me. He's extremely happy that
Uber came along to give him a much better way to make money.

~~~
vacri
> _They charged him $150 /day to drive for them no matter what._

Not that I particularly want to defend taxi companies, but they also own and
maintain the cars. Purchasing a newish vehicle and maintaining it isn't free -
while not being charged daily, it's still a sizeable invoice you have to pay,
no matter what. $150/day does seem extortionate, though.

~~~
mikeash
Of course, but the quantity is outrageous. Financing a taxi-level car is going
to be, what, $200/month? Maintenance should be substantially lower than that
amount. That daily charge is literally an order of magnitude higher. "No
matter what" is fine. $150 could be fine, if you earned a lot. It's the
combination that's crazy.

------
ajays
Services like Uber definitely need some regulation. I drove from downtown SF
to the Castro this evening, and witnessed 4 separate incidents of Uber drivers
being reckless and/or discourteous. Things like: driver stopped in the
leftmost lane, at a green light, because he suddenly decided that he wants to
turn _right_ instead of left; driver stopped in the right lane to pick up
passenger, when he could have just stood in a parking spot a few yards down;
driver stopped to pick up a passenger at a corner, blocking the crosswalk.

I'm all for "disrupting" the taxi industry, but please don't disrupt traffic
because you're too lazy and/or clueless. Is there a way to report asshole Uber
drivers?

~~~
usaphp
What does it have to do with Uber? A lot of drivers are doing that, and don't
even get me started on taxi drivers in New York City, they just do whatever
they want on a road.

~~~
discardorama
I have noticed the same in SF.

> What does it have to do with Uber?

If these are Uber drivers picking up/dropping off passengers, then it's Uber's
problem, isn't it? Setting aside the contractor/employee dispute, these
drivers are engaged in activity for which they'll get money from Uber, so it
definitely is Uber's problem.

> A lot of drivers are doing that

Not in SF. I've lived here 10 years, and never saw this level of ineptitude.
These days whenever I see a driver being an asshole, I immediately check to
see if it's an uber driver; and 9/10 it is. I sometimes work in a cafe which
is on a corner; and I've lost count of the number of times I've seen Uber
drivers doing a U-turn _at the stop sign_ , confusing other traffic.

> don't even get me started on taxi drivers in New York City

Irrelevant, since we're talking about SF.

~~~
usaphp
> "I've seen Uber drivers doing a U-turn at the stop sign, confusing other
> traffic"

There is nothing wrong with doing a U-turn at the stop sign, it's absolutely
legal [1]

1\. [http://www.pe.com/articles/insurance-629158-traffic-
vehicle....](http://www.pe.com/articles/insurance-629158-traffic-vehicle.html)

------
nolepointer
Poor Comrade De Blasio didn't get his way.

------
p_monk
Uber's "we need to meet demand" argument is true, but disingenuous. Uber needs
to keep adding more drivers because they have such a high turnover rate.

Many drivers work for a few months, realize that after costs they're making
minimum wage, if that, and then quit. Naturally, Uber needs constant access to
fresh blood in order to keep the scheme going.

~~~
dotBen
If there was such an issue with churn, which isn't, the cap wouldn't be an
issue because it was (as proposed) for total drivers not licenses issued.

------
fx85ms
The title would be better if it were "Uber has defeated Bill de Blasio's plan
to block them from doing business". I think we really need to fight the notion
that Uber promotes "ride sharing", whatever that even means now. Uber has
shown that its service is anything but sharing - it is plain old taxi with a
spiffy app and no labour protection, and where their "employees" are merely
treated as another replaceable contractor. The media also needs to stop
quoting meaningless buzzwords like "sharing", but I guess this goes to show
the successful PR of Uber.

~~~
snitko
And yet people choose to use them and pay them money. But no, we must protect
those willing customers from the dangers of doing business freely and having
an actuall choice, instead of paying extra to a violent monopoly of taxi
drivers who'd rather crash other's cars than compete honestly.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Just because some people are willing to pay for something, doesn't mean it's
right. People in general are very happy to pay for things that have huge
externalities not directly affecting them.

~~~
HappyTypist
What externalities for uber are you referring to?

~~~
Tomte
Uninsured Uber driver causes traffic accident. Pedestrian is severely injured.
Uber driver cannot pay for the medical expenses and there is no insurance
company involved who could.

Either the pedestrian is ruined for life, or society has to pick up the bill.

That's one of the clearest examples of externality you will ever see.

Our free choice evangelists try to frame the whole issue as "one Uber driver,
one satified customer who only exercised a choice, and no one else exist in
the world".

It's dishonest, but that's Internet discussions.

~~~
HappyTypist
First of all, if that was true it would be a failure of the healthcare system
("society paying the bill" is just insurance with economies of scale). But
that's not true. A lot of people are not aware of recent developments with
uber. Uber offers commercial comprehensive insurance on all rides. When there
is a passenger in the car, there is full commercial insurance.

When there are no pax, many insurance providers DO cover it under personal
insurance. Some (like geico) don't, but I would wager that the majority of
Uber are insured every second of the day.

~~~
Tomte
You're simply wrong.

Even if the healthcare system eats the cost (as it would in my country), it's
not supposed to. That's akin to entering a health insurance contract and then
demanding the insurer pays for the theft of your iPhone.

Road traffic is insured by car insurers. The Uber driver doesn't have any, the
car insurer therefore doesn't pay, so _someone else_ pays. It doesn't matter
if you rationalize it with "oh, that someone else is also some insurer". It is
someone not involved at all. Ergo an externality.

~~~
snitko
So, I'm from Russia. In Russia, there's a great variety of cheap taxis, great
mobile apps with reviews, gps location of taxis and stuff like that. Very good
infrastructure. All simply because government doesn't regulate that.

I am yet to meet a single person complaining that this is bad. There is no
increase in road accidents. The service is great. The drivers are very polite
and are always on time. One must wonder, how can you be so blind to an obvious
example of free market at work?

------
s73v3r
Why are we still calling this "ridesharing"? Isn't it pretty clear to everyone
that there is no ride sharing going on?

~~~
mgraczyk
I use UberPOOL more often than UberX these days. I think it's fair to call
that "ridesharing".

~~~
littletimmy
In other news, McDonalds is not a burger shop anymore because I just order the
icecream.

~~~
mgraczyk
That's silly. A more accurate analogy would be: We should stop saying there is
no ice cream (no ridesharing) being sold at McDonalds (Uber). I think that's a
reasonable assertion.

------
michaelochurch
I'm no fan of Uber and I can't stand its founder or his ridiculous smirk
but... they played this well. Uber's got game when it comes to politics. If
either political party ever learned demagoguery from Travis, I'd be scared.

It helps them that their opponent isn't sympathetic at all. Non-zero medallion
values, by definition, mean that there are too few cabs on the road (and in
New York, there are). The Medallion Mafia pisses me off; just a bunch of rent-
seekers stealing money from drivers.

I'm actually glad to see the Medallion assholes get "disrupted". I just wish
that it were a different company taking the lead in doing it.

~~~
tsax
My hunch is that if the company was different, it would lose. Like it or not,
this is what's required to defeat our noble overlords a.k.a. the holy
regulators and the munificent politicians.

------
littletimmy
Pity.

This modern day exploitation should end. Uber's huge profits are because they
exploit people for labor. Ban it already.

~~~
seizethecheese
As far as I know every Uber driver chooses to be one. Also, to be an Uber
driver you have to own a relatively new car... I couldn't even drive for Uber
because my car is too cheap. These people are not helpless.

~~~
sampo
Some people might take a loan to buy a car to drive Uber?

~~~
seizethecheese
To get a car loan you need employment history and decent credit. While some
folks that fit this category are struggling, it's not exactly the profile of
an exploited class.

~~~
kalleboo
Uber push their own financing program to recruit drivers (or to get drivers to
update their cars). They use subprime lenders and claim that even people with
poor credit are eligible
[https://get.uber.com/cl/financing/](https://get.uber.com/cl/financing/)

If you're recruited by Uber, enter into a loan, and then Uber drops the rates
to a level where you're not profitable, that can be a problem. There are a
bunch of stories of this kind, eg:
[http://www.marketplace.org/topics/tech/uber-drivers-
struggle...](http://www.marketplace.org/topics/tech/uber-drivers-struggle-pay-
subprime-auto-loans) [http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/27/uber-
promote...](http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/27/uber-promotes-
subprime-auto-loans-to-increase-driver-pool.html)

------
dmead
no mention of ashton kutcher's day job as a tech investor.

