Does this bother you? Aggressively targeting your competitor's employees? Imagine if Google went to your startup and offered everyone 100K signing bonus to leave. Would this be OK, within the bounds of acceptable competition?
Slight correction: the government went after them for anti-solicitation agreements[1], and then they were sued for salary-fixing by former employees[2].
What this makes me think is that the market for drivers (or at least good drivers) is in high demand and they are a limited pool with more leverage than is recognised. That means they can probably command higher prices which will ultimately have to be passed along to consumers somehow.
It's a fair point. I think you'd have to segment labor market a little more, by personality (silent & professional/fun & engaging).
My thought is that Lyft does well with the second type, and Uber is recognizing value in that market.
I don't think it will drive up costs though. Here Uber is not promising them a higher rate - just switching bonuses. Uber has strong incentives not to offer higher rates, changes their whole cost structure. This is just a recruiting expense.
I don't see these services implementing multiple tier payment structures, because that would have to be passed to consumer and then pricing gets complicated when all you want is a ride now.
Now I think you're absolutely right the supply is tight. Lyft has some serious driver shortages as it is, and this is not helping matters.
I wonder when they'll start letting drivers share cars (or even use a third party car such as Zipcar), but that would help open up the SF market to labor that is constrained by not having a car of their own (which, I'd estimate that's quite a few people).
Higher input prices are not wholly passed along to consumers, although this is a common misconception. The degree to which prices go up vs producers accepting a smaller profit depends on the elasticity of consumer demand.
Where this relates to the apportionment of a tax burden, it's known as tax incidence, which is probably the best search string to start with.
Uber has been making huge strides. I think it is a much better company that lyft. With lyft you're supposed to talk to the driver, keep them entertained so that you get a good rating. Uberx is not that much more expensive and the drivers are much nicer and have much better manners.
I'd much rather pay the extra few bucks on an Uber.
Lyft is more fun. I took 50+ rides in the summer. Unlike Uber, Lyft hires for personality. I became friends with some of my drives, had crazy city tours (including a walking tour!) and just generally had much more pleasant experiences versus the many Uber trips I've had in multiple cities.
That's a perverse analogy. You're still paying for the ride, not for the conversation. An enjoyable conversation as oppose to silence, is icing on the cake.
Consider this: We don't pay for the barber to talk to us but would we go back to a barber if he wasn't socially adept?
I'm probably not the only one that'd say: Yes, I'd prefer if the barber doesn't talk. Unless I'm in a particularly outgoing mood I'm probably not really interested in talking to a stranger. I'd pick the barber based on how smooth the transaction and service was. Perhaps I'm in an odd minority.
Tough to say whether you're in odd minority. As I suggested above, I think market is splitting between riders who want a quiet/professional ride, and a fun/engaging ride. Uber is clearly leader in first, and Lyft is clearly leader in second.
UberX has some soul searching to do. Are they going to be the Lyft competitor (fun/engaging), or the cheaper Uber black (quiet/professional)? So far I see them in the second bucket, but this ad makes me ponder.
I actually prefer a balance between silence and a bit of chatter. I can't stand it when the barber tries to talk about bullshit I don't care about like sports. It's definitely a delicate thing to get right. My original point was that silence can be somewhat disconcerting and it's always good if the service worker has a bit of personality and grace to make for an enjoyable rather than awkward experience.
I think that Lyft sells the experience, and Uber sells the transparency. A perfect Lyft experience is fun and social. A perfect Uber experience is subtle and seamless.
At least in DC, they're distinct. The taxi service sends actual city-licensed taxis to pick you up, and the rate you pay is based on the meter (though you still pay for it via their app). UberX uses cars licensed as livery vehicles (like the black car service), and the rate is set per mile or minute or whatever by Uber, but they're mid-range cars like Priuses rather than towncars.
