> Is it? If this were to remain, the large majority of the drivers will not have a position to fill. It will not be viable.
It's simple supply and demand. The demand for easy-to-book, gps-enabled car rides is there. If uber cannot accommodate, someone else will.
>No one has 'pushed' anything. Drivers are consensually agreeing to drive because the pay they receive values their time.
People undervalue their labor in order to get the gigs they need to make money. Laborers consensually agreed to unsafe, 18 hour factory work back in the day, and indentured servants consensually agreed to years-long contracts of, effectively, their life.
If the only reason uber competes is due to price difference gained by eschewing labor laws and benefits, then of course drivers are agreeing to drive with them -- there is no other option for their labor when the competitors that provide benefits have to shrink operations due to demand shifting to illegally-sourced labor. That said, I don't think Uber is used due to their price so much as their technology.
>How are they not equipped?
I doubt many will afford commercial vehicle insurance, health insurance, 401Ks, in addition to substantially increased maintenance costs covered out of their own pocket. It will certainly make driving for uber undesirable. Of course, Uber covering these costs is far cheaper overall, and the price change would likely be negligible.
>What society needs is less people forcing them to do what others think is best.
The supply of taxis is regulated in the cities, amongst other things, so that the pricing reflects society's ideas of the minimum fair compensation for that class of work.
The constraint on the supply of taxis has no effect on prices, which are regulated separately.
The real effect of the supply regulation is to force drivers to pay up to a hundred dollars per day to be allow to work by some medallion-owning companies and investors.
Lease drivers rent the medallions, and usually the taxis, for a day or a week from their owners or a middleman. Depending on the owner and the night of the week, a lease driver pays $72 to $100 to take a car out for a 12-hour shift, or about $450 to $650 for a weekly lease. The driver must also pay for gas, at $15 to $20 a night. Drivers keep whatever fares and tips they collect, but they often start a day's work $100 or more behind.
It's simple supply and demand. The demand for easy-to-book, gps-enabled car rides is there. If uber cannot accommodate, someone else will.
>No one has 'pushed' anything. Drivers are consensually agreeing to drive because the pay they receive values their time.
People undervalue their labor in order to get the gigs they need to make money. Laborers consensually agreed to unsafe, 18 hour factory work back in the day, and indentured servants consensually agreed to years-long contracts of, effectively, their life.
If the only reason uber competes is due to price difference gained by eschewing labor laws and benefits, then of course drivers are agreeing to drive with them -- there is no other option for their labor when the competitors that provide benefits have to shrink operations due to demand shifting to illegally-sourced labor. That said, I don't think Uber is used due to their price so much as their technology.
>How are they not equipped?
I doubt many will afford commercial vehicle insurance, health insurance, 401Ks, in addition to substantially increased maintenance costs covered out of their own pocket. It will certainly make driving for uber undesirable. Of course, Uber covering these costs is far cheaper overall, and the price change would likely be negligible.
>What society needs is less people forcing them to do what others think is best.
This is just a stupid talking point.