How do the sexual assault stats for Uber compare to regular taxis, I wonder? I think there's probably not a whole hell of a lot that can be done other than rigorous background checks and careful driver education.
I suppose they could require cameras in the cars monitoring the interior so that there would at least be evidence in the event of driver misconduct. That would probably discourage the marginal rapist, but I'd be less likely to take a vehicle where I was monitored thanks to a general paranoia about privacy.
I'd be less likely to take a vehicle where I was monitored thanks to a general paranoia about privacy.
Uh, then don't ride uber. Their records are already recording who you are, where you were picked up, where you were dropped off, and when. What additional loss of privacy would you fear with a camera?
I think there's probably not a whole hell of a lot that can be done other than rigorous background checks and careful driver education.
Things which Uber vigorously opposes. They pulled out of Austin after funding a failed referendum on the city council's decision to require fingerprinting and background checks on drivers, a standard to which taxi drivers are held.
I should try Lyft, and I keep meaning to sign up, but I certainly don't want to go back to before Uber. If I call them for a ride, they show up. This saves a great deal of money, not because the Uber fare is less than the taxi but because the Uber is reliable enough that I can, for example, take the bus somewhere and assume I can get home via Uber if I'm out after the bus stops running.
The first of four parts on Naked Capitalism. See, if you'd written to me, I could have added significant value.
How do the sexual assault stats for Uber compare to regular taxis,
I don't have stats, but my anecdotal impression of NYC yellow cabs is that they're as safe as can be reasonably be expected. (Not safe in the sense of driving skill, or in the sense of whether they're going to say weird and possibly politically objectionable shit, but safe in the sense of whether they're going to assault you.) I may be living in a fantasy world here, but I think whatever the process is -- expensive medallions and a supervising agency that's responsive to complaints (I don't know that they are, but if they are, that'd explain it) -- seems to work okay.
(Now I'm going to google and find out that cabs are actually hellishly dangerous.)
Neb and I should have a series of competitive Guest Posts to determine which categories we are better suited for, once and for all.
OR we could have a standing rule where Neb can go add "Neb's Take" to my posts, and I can go add a fourth level of indention to Neb's posts.
Keep the levels of indentation going until it's just one column of letters running down the page.
2 - I'm willing to give up a little for convenience, but cameras are a bridge too far. Video is vastly more compelling than other forms of information, and video is easily edited into deceptive forms. There are not viral records of people getting picked up and dropped off. Viral videos are a dime a dozen.
3 - I think in that case I'm definitely switching to Lyft. I still use regular taxis some times, but the convenience of app-based rides is much higher than that of any taxi service I'm aware of (though I rarely use taxis/Uber these days, so I'm probably missing something).
Resistance to background checks is fucking absurd. Gun shops do background checks in real time while you stand there for a few minutes. Uber could easily put together a quick background check/fingerprinting station in each city they serve, and it wouldn't have to be some place with pricey real estate as everyone who drives for them already has access to a car so make it a tiny little hole in the wall in some strip mall in the suburbs. Heck, the only part that requires the driver be physically present is the fingerprinting, so if they require fingerprint readers on the phones/tablets of drivers they could simply have the driver swipe all their prints in front of some appropriate witness like a notary public and the whole thing would be trivial.
Fourteen rapes in cabs in NYC last year, but that doesn't break it down by yellow/Uber/other black car. That still seems pretty low to me, but obviously not zero.
Gun shops do background checks in real time while you stand there for a few minutes.
Sure, they do that now.
10: Given the number of cabs in NYC that does seem like a fairly low number.
Video of a guy in an apartment picking the nose of a baby fox.
3 - I think in that case I'm definitely switching to Lyft. I still use regular taxis some times, but the convenience of app-based rides is much higher than that of any taxi service I'm aware of (though I rarely use taxis/Uber these days, so I'm probably missing something).
Uber and Lyft both co-funded the referendum and both packed up and left over it. Now there are some start-ups in their wake, though.
13: Flirting. I don't want my mad flirtin' skillz revealed to all and sundry. Trade secret, doncha know
You can't patent a fragrance or a flirt.
Has anyone ever had a woman Uber driver? I have had a woman taxi driver exactly twice (once in Belgium, and once in Switzerland), and I've never had a woman Uber driver. I've only taken Uber three times, though, when I was with someone uses Uber.
I had a female taxi driver in Mexico City once. And it was a street taxi, not a more expensive radio taxi/black car, either. She was very nice, too. I was quietly, admiringly impressed the whole ride.
Has anyone ever had a woman Uber driver?
None that I can remember in Austin, but the majority in New Orleans were.
Down in the west Texas town of El Paso,
I got a ride from a Mexican girl.
Nighttime would find me in Rosa's cantina,
the app would play and Uber would whirl.
Have had many woman Uber drivers in LA.
Blacker than night was the back of her Honda
Twisting and turning all over the land.
My pockets were deep for this Mexican driver
I was in love, but my flirting was banned.
One night a wild young developer came in
Wild as the Cupertino wind
Dashing and daring, a ride he was sharing
With wicked Felina, the girl that I loved.
Now there are some start-ups in their wake, though.
This is some nice protectionism on Austin's part. Drive out the national companies through regulation and give space for local companies to thrive.
I've had one or two female Uber drivers out of a dozen or so rides.
This category of problem is one that baffles my intuition. I would have thought that the fact that there's an obvious electronic record of "this driver, whose name, address and SSN we have, drove this passenger", plus the GPS tracking of (probably) both of their locations, would be an obvious deterrent to raping passengers. Perhaps the background check is necessary just to screen out the people who can't figure that out.
22-25: Nice. Not quite "A Child Named Storm", but nice.
27: Men rape women they know who can identify them at times when they were provably in the same place all the time. They've still got either "she's lying, nothing happened" or "anything that happened was consensual" to rely on.
27: I don't actually know that assault rates are different between Uber/Lyft and the ride-sharing companies who are compliant with the background checks. I also don't know exactly if the rates are worth worrying about. I do find it infuriating to have a company actively fighting commonsense measures to keep their riders safe - grounded or not, I'd have a prickly uneasy feeling about taking Uber alone, and I would not have that feeling about a regular cab or the subway (or even walking).
Meanwhile I do kind of enjoy the knowledge that my rides are directly subsidized by VC money. Not sustainable at all, of course, but why not take the money/subsidy while it's there?
One observation on Uber in London (sample of about 4 rides ever) - if the Theresa May gang ever got serious about deporting undocumented immigrants, I suspect Uber would be in deep shit. None of our drivers spoke a word of English.
Are you sure they weren't just from up north? It can be hard to tell if they aren't willing to talk a bit slower.
Have had numerous female cab drivers in China. It's not unusual to be recorded, either.
Women cab drivers all carry guns. (Women truck drivers, too.)
Not sure about Uber drivers, but probably them too.
33. I live in Yorkshire and my brother in law is from Sunderland. These guys were not English speakers.
36L If so, they're violating Uber policy.
Chris speaks fluent up north. Related: spoken English has mutated into an almost completely separate language in my lifetime. I was watching an old episode of doctor who earlier this week and it was extraordinary. Everyone spoke like me. No florals were stopped in the making of the film. Terminal "l"s were sounded. I want a time machine.
37: I was mainly joking. When I went to Lancaster for a semester in college, my London-raised aunt warned me that I wouldn't be able to understand anyone.
So in Anger I...
Filed and paid for an old referendum
Down went the voters to vote on my bill
My challenge was answered in less than a heartbeat
I staggered under my own overkill.
I've been working with students in my office. Sorry.
31- My first year in grad school I ordered textbooks from some startup who thought they'd compete in that niche. Their systems were built so poorly they never processed the charge for my ~$800 of books. They went out of business the next year. This is the largest amount of money I made off the dot com bubble.
Had you gone north east instead of north west that might have been true.
45: I don't think she much distinguished between different parts of "North".
My challenge was answered In less than a heartbeat
The handsome young ride share Lay dead on the floor
Just for a moment I say there in silence
If not meant to kill him: if only been miffed
Many thoughts raced through my mind as we drove on
I had but one chance and that was to lift
The app fired up and away I did ride ...
Describe and fuck autocorrect and tiny screens.
I'm fairly pro-Uber in London, as an outgrowth of being anti-everything else; the black cabs are expensive, incompetent ("The Globe Theatre? Where's that? Is it on the South Bank?"), criminal ("Wait here you cunt! I'm going to come back after I've dropped my passenger off and break your arms!") and racist ("But I wouldn't let my daughter marry a black"), and minicab drivers tend to be appallingly unsafe. Contra 32, all the Uber drivers I've met have spoken English, but none have been UK-born - Africa seems to be commonest (Uganda, Kenya, Malawi so far).
Just for a moment I sat there in silence
I'd not meant to kill him: I'd only been miffed
Many thoughts raced through my mind as we drove on
I had but one chance and that was to lyft
"But I wouldn't let my daughter marry a black"
That's also sexist.
37. chris -- I have 2 tickets to see the Super Furry Animals at the O2 Academy Leeds this Thursday the 15th (7:00 pm) [which after looking on the map is in Yorkshire?]. I'm very sad about it, but I can't make the trip. If you or someone you know would like the tickets, email me and I can mail them off to you.
Rance, that's very kind. I can't off hand think of anybody I know who would like them, but if that changes I'll let you know.
So like, I've had female Uber drivers too, in Chicago, but not a ton. Let's say the true percentage of male drivers is around 70-90%. Then the primary effect of an anti-flirting rule is to protect female passengers from male drivers, yeah? And female passengers from male drivers. "He was harassing me!" "No, I was just flirting, she took it wrong." That doesn't fly anymore. I don't see what's in it for Uber to prosecute their female passengers; they want as little attention focused on this sort of thing as possible.
There's a determination in the Gawker left to assume the worst of Uber, AirBnB, etc. that baffles me.
Your analysis of this particular issue looks pretty good to me, but Uber, AirBnB and the like are businesses that fundamentally rely as part of their business model on evading regulations that were imposed at least nominally in the public interest. If you're not a hard core eliminate-the-fire-department libertarian, being really, really suspicious of them is only reasonable, and shouldn't baffle you at all.
The business model is evading regulatory structures that protect consumers, primarily, but also producers. That's baffling?
We have a hotel tax. Airbnb people are supposed to collect and pay it. They aren't. Is someone making sure they have the right number of fire extinguishers?
My city just enacted airbnb (etc) registration, which is a first step. The tax is a state tax, though, so the city isn't going to be speding time collecting it . . .
Even a libertarian shouldn't be baffled.
Not a libertarian in contact with reality. But a really committed libertarian idiot could hear "evading regulations" as a straightforward positive.
I have to vote on short term rental regulations next week.
I'll be happy to tell you how to vote if you tell me what, precisely, you're voting on.
Don't you think the prevailing taxi regulation scheme before Uber was well past its best-by date? Reputation systems work. I feel just as safe in an Uber as in a cab, because I know the driver has an incentive to give me a good experience to keep his job, and Uber has incentive to make sure their drivers are all above a certain level of reasonable. All of you feel the same way. So what do we need a medallion system for? At this point it's just Big Taxi trying to keep prices high by keeping supply low.
Is the medallion system that common outside of big cities? I could be wrong, but I don't think many places have regulation schemes set up to keep supply low.
69: We have one here, though I don't think they're called "medallions." The assembly is considering an ordinance to increase the number of them available, and a whole bunch of taxi drivers showed up at the assembly meeting this week to argue against it.
So, yes, it definitely is true that the taxi industry is exceptionally prone to regulatory capture, and in theory a company like Uber could provide some much-needed competition to the incumbent companies. The actual company Uber seems overly focused on evading any and all regulations, however, even obvious safety-oriented ones like background checks of drivers, which makes it harder to tell if its entry into a given market is actually a net good.
68: this seems an odd argument:
With over 98% of [driver] ratings being five stars, the reputation system does not meaningfully discriminate among drivers or riders. A reputation system that does not discriminate fails as a reputation system: it fails to solve the problem of trust.
Effectively the system is a binary rating - but why does that mean it has failed? Doesn't it just imply that 98% of rides were perfectly satisfactory? He's comparing it to Netflix ratings of films, which is just stupid..
The other thing is that while the medallion system is probably not ideal, cabs in Manhattan are available and safe (enough for my purposes) using it. At which point I'm not prepared to throw it out as an obviously broken system that evading is an obvious solution to.
(I believe some years ago I registered a blanket objection to any and all libertarian childishness advanced by anyone who hadn't litigated a breach of contract suit to verdict. "Sharing" comes within the objection.)
74: Right, it also depends on how well the existing taxi market functions, which varies a lot from city to city. There are a lot of cities that effectively didn't have reliable cab service at all before Uber showed up. In that context, it could well be a net good even if its regulatory compliance is sketchy.
71: Maybe they're avoiding background checks because they know a lot of their drivers are dangerous characters who would fail them, and they don't care. Or maybe they're avoiding background checks because the background checks aren't really screening for anything important, and they want it to be as easy and smooth as possible to start driving for Uber. My money's on the latter, but if you think otherwise... then you should take a cab!
76: This, I'm prepared to concede (and in NYC, I think they are in regulatory compliance as a radio-car company -- they're not yellow cabs, but they're as regulated as a cab you'd get by phoning). But in terms of generalized suspicion of everything they do, I think the practice of regulation-dodging is enough to justify it.
77: I think there's a few more possibilities than the two you list. For instance, maybe they know damn well that some sketchy characters are going to assault passengers, have done the math, and found that paying out the occasional damages is going to be cheaper than background checks. I bet the Uber ToS will shortly include a shitty arbitration clause if it doesn't already, helping to reduce the size of the payouts. There are other considerations they have no doubt taken into account, like reputational damage if Uber becomes known as the 'get raped' service. It's all about the money, and only about the money.
what happens if I falsely accuse an uber driver of robbing me?
If you open an account, I can start spamming your favorite blog.
Just a few weeks ago, Uber sent around an email saying, "We revised our arbitration agreement which explains how legal disputes are handled." I didn't read the link.
80: If you falsely accused a bunch of uber drivers of robbing you, they couldn't file a class action suit against you if you made them sign the same agreement uber makes its riders sign.
73: I think the better argument is that since ratings are mutual and bidirectional people tend to give each other high ratings to avoid being given low ratings themselves. Anecdotally this is totally something that happens.
79: if they had done that, wouldn't they leave themselves open to truly huge punitive damages?
Note, by the way, that Uber actually does background check its drivers. They use a fingerprint based service that checks against the FBI database, and various other checks.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/03/are-taxis-safer-than-uber/386207/
So whatever 77 and 79 are talking about, it isn't Uber...
My money's on the latter, but if you think otherwise... then you should take a cab!
I, personally, don't actually have a choice, because Uber doesn't operate in Anchorage. The reason for that is pretty interesting and relevant to this discussion:
Basically, when Uber showed up in town the city told them they had to follow all the regular taxi regulations in order to charge people for rides. Uber refused and started operating for free, presumably intending to build a loyal customer base that would put pressure on the city to exempt them from regulation. After several months it became clear that this loyal customer base was not going to develop, and that the city wasn't going to back down, so Uber pulled out and hasn't come back.
At least part of the reason things worked out this way is that the existing cab service in Anchorage is actually pretty good (though it could be better, which is why the city is now trying to increase the number of cabs). Competition from Uber did force the incumbent companies to improve their customer service by doing things like developing their own apps with some of the same functionality as Uber's, so it probably was a net positive overall to have them show up even though they didn't stay.
77
Typical glibertarian psychopathy. I'm not worried about my own safety, I'm worried about about everyone's safety. You know, the whole reason we have public safety regulations.
They use a fingerprint based service that checks against the FBI database,
Only in a few cities.
Around here you can call a cab to come pick you up. I don't quite understand why taxi cabs can't have ride-calling apps.
Around here you can call a cab to come pick you up. I don't quite understand why taxi cabs can't have ride-calling apps.
As a software company providing coordination services, I thought Uber didn't have drivers. So how could they check their background?
The Boston cab companies are kind of shitty. The Boston Globe did a whole piece on how some of the big companies fleeced their drivers and the police/regulators were looking the other way.
This whole discussion is frankly offensive to anyone who believes in the frictionless on-demand economy. Drivers should be able to check their own backgrounds and broadcast the results using NFC. An app on your phone will tell you which independent drivers in your vicinity meet a certain reputational threshold that you, not some third-party, or worse, some government sets. You then enter an auction among riders and drivers to set a fair price for your ride. I don't understand why people don't do this already.
fa nails it. Everyone who doesn't buy into the disruptive nature of the post-scarcity sharing economy is a cunt.
92: they do, sort of. When Uber started in the US the black cabs put together a shitty app called Hailo that didn't work. Every time I tried it would tell me that there were no taxis available anywhere in central London. I kept it for a few months then erased it.
Chicago looks great at night from cruising altitude.
Great again, I should say. All lit up like that.
But then, rather like the joke about how lucky Angela Merkel is that the bar for worst German Chancellor has been set so high, Uber is probably thinking that it has a long way to go yet before it hits the level of cab-related law breaking that is regarded as actually worth prosecuting in England. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
I'm coordinating the spending of all of the Medicare, so it's libertarianism for the rest of you.
98.last: It looks nice even when you are sober.
I will say that cabs are better, faster, and cheaper-as-far-as-I-can-tell in Manhattan than Uber is. But in Chicago it was the opposite.
Several Boston-area taxi companies have set up ride-calling apps, but is just indirects into the usual dispatch system, which is terrible. There's no systemic accountability at all; the Green Taxi (my city) driver who fails to show up to your hail for whatever reason suffers no consequences; you just don't get a taxi, and you have to notice and do something about it.
So I'm on team ajay here; I'm mostly pro-Uber because the alternatives are uniformly bad.
the alternatives are uniformly bad
Each unhappy taxi company is unhappy in a uniform way.
Fuck Uber. This story pissed me off so much I was going to send it to a FPP. Their license was revoked here for operating transport services while licensed as a software company. Now they're being fined pocket change, the equivalent of 78000 USD, and they did this:
Uber Taiwan published half-page advertisements on the front page of four major local newspapers on Wednesday, stating that the severity of the fine was disproportionate.Which is a straight lie:
An advertisement published in Apple Daily read: "Legislators are fined NT$90,000 for drunk driving; regular people will be fined NT$25 million for driving with Uber?"
The new amendment gives law enforcement room to punish violators based on the size of their illegal operation, Ho Chen said, explaining that independent drivers would be subject to lighter fines while companies would be fined from NT$1 million and above.And also:
In United Daily News, an ad read: "The government suppresses new technology. So much for Asian Silicon Valley!"Because obviously the way to promote local tech firms is to allow foreign tech firms with immeasurably more money to compete against them illegally. Uber is just a bad actor, and it doesn't matter if local incumbents are bad actors too. Uber is worse because it's more powerful.
How much are non-legislators fined from drunk driving?
In Seattle, we use Lyft. We've had some female drivers. One was an MBA between jobs trying to see if driving for Lyft could cover her car expenses. Drivers tend to prefer Lyft because Lyft doesn't try to screw out every penny, charges a flat percentage and encourages tipping. The big selling point for us is that once Lyft says your ride is on its way, odds are you will have a ride. Taxi companies would typically tell you fifteen minutes, another fifteen minutes and so on, so getting a ride was a matter of luck.
The Seattle city government has passed a lot of Uber and Lyft related legislation. They require background checks, and now they've allowed for the creation of drivers' unions. Most Uber and Lyft rides are driven by professional drivers who are usually logged into Uber and Lyft at the same time and often will drive taxi shifts when it makes sense for them. The unions are mainly for professionals, not amateurs like the above mentioned MBA, and there was some contention as to the distinction.
Granted, both Uber and Lyft are both VC subsidized, but they've been a real stimulus to the local taxi business. For years it was nearly impossible to get a street hail except at the Sheraton or to even get a taxi to come to Ballard. Now there are more cabs cruising. They are cleaner and usually have working seat belts which is nice. I've actually been taking more taxis lately now that they are more available.
It's a democracy. Everyone is a legislator.
It's a democracy. Everyone is a legislator.
"They are cleaner and usually have working seat belts which is nice. I've actually been taking more taxis lately now that they are more available"
Good lord, it's almost as if the way to promote local firms actually is to allow foreign firms with immeasurably more money to compete against them.
110: Wasn't 107 already agreeing with that idea?
97. This presumably reflects extremely low take-up of Hailo by cabbies.
Trump is Uber, but for the presidency. You could imagine a US with a more open political system where real change is possible, and more competing interests could find expression, but instead there's an ossified system basically in stasis that fails to serve enough people with real needs, so someone finally takes advantage and jumps in, riding a wave of disgust and outside money. People complain about all the regulations he evades, but fuck them, he's getting results!
92,97: OTOH, the taxi app in Berlin is integrated into the system flawlessly. I don't hit the hail button until my shoes and jacket are on, because the cab gets there in the time it takes me to go downstairs.
There's an app for the taxi company in Arrakis that works fairly well only the cabbies are usually new arrivals and font know where anything is. Including how to find you when you use the app so it's always hit or miss.
In other news as it's the prophet's birthday I can't get a beer anywhere in Dubai.
Uber's finances are ridiculous
https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2016/12/01/2180647/the-taxi-unicorns-new-clothes/
"As shown in Exhibit 2, for the year ending September 2015, Uber had GAAP losses of $2 billion on revenue of $1.4 billion, a negative 143% profit margin. Thus Uber's current operations depend on $2 billion in subsidies, funded out of the $13 billion in cash its investors have provided."
"Uber passengers were paying only 41% of the actual cost of their trips; Uber was using these massive subsidies to undercut the fares and provide more capacity than the competitors who had to cover 100% of their costs out of passenger fares."
Is Lyft better? I just set up that account. I'm a little worried that they won't actually come for a first-time customer at 6:00 a.m. on a Sunday.
I guess my concerns about whether or not they will pick me up probably don't relate directly to the profit margin. In the short term.
121: Isn't that super illegal?
121: : but what actually is the definition of Uber's revenue? Is it the total amount of money that flows through the system, or the 28% of it that remains with Uber?
To put it another way: if I pay $20 for an Uber journey, Uber takes $5.60 and the driver keeps the other $14.40. Is Uber's revenue for that journey $5.60, or $20? This article implies that it's $5.60; that $20 is bookings, not GAAP revenue.
So how big is the subsidy to the drivers, really? It's not 41%.
In Q2 2016, Uber reported $5 billion bookings, $1.1 billion revenue and $750 million losses - the bulk of which it attributed to "subsidies to the drivers". Let's say it's all subsidies.
What's the total cost of the ride? Well, the drivers apparently need everything they get to keep from the passengers ($5 billion minus $1.1 billion) and they need another $750 million subsidies on top. $4.65 billion.
$750 million divided by $4.65 billion is 16%. Not 41%.
Or, to look at it another way: say Uber demanded no commission at all from its drivers. Say it was an entirely free service, and the drivers kept the entire fare. Would it still need subsidies? No, because $4.65 billion is less than $5 billion. Uber's take off the top is significantly more than its subsidies back to the drivers.
Uber's business model may or may not be sustainable, but it definitely is not subsidising its drivers to provide rides below cost...
124: it isn't illegal to provide a service for which the end-user pays less than the cost of production. Foolish, possibly. But it's what every newspaper and broadcast TV station does.
Depending on context, it can be illegal here, as an antitrust violation. This isn't stuff I know well, but the concept is predatory pricing -- a big, well-funded company drops prices below cost for long enough to drive other competitors out of the market, and that's a use of market power in violation of antitrust law.
But this should be stuff you know better than I do, shouldn't it? What did you mean that I'm missing?
No, that sounds right: it can be illegal but it isn't necessarily. In the EU it's only illegal if it has an anti-competitive effect because the person doing it has a dominant market position. Uber does not have a dominant position in London - it says it has about 15,000 drivers (not all of whom are full-time), compared with 45,000 non-Uber private hire drivers and 22,000 black cab drivers. I
f a small player in the market wants to provide a service below cost, the EU's position is "crack on, but don't come crying to us when you run out of money".
Uber seems morally bankrupt, but when I compare Uber and Lyft prices Uber is often half the price and AFAIK they're losing money when I use them so I'm ok with taking the occasional uber.
Other people I know don't have the same experience with Uber vs. Lyft pricing which makes me wonder if I'm part of some algorithmic price-testing that happens to give me a low price? I can usually get from downtown Seattle to the east side (or vice versa) for
Sral was about to reveal the one weird trick that Uber hates, but I guess they got to him.
Whoops!
for less than twenty dollars, vs. thirty to forty dollars for Lyft. And when I visited San Francisco recently my trip from SFO to the embarcadero was barely over ten dollars, which seems way too low to make sense.
They can make up for the loss on each trip by doing business in volume.
Lyft and Uber are giving me about the same estimate for trips from here to the airport ($20). That's about half of the taxi fare the last time I took one.
125 is hilarious, and as near as I can tell correct. Not that Uber isn't shady up the wazoo, but the 41% figure from naked capitalism is just confused accounting.
Let's not shame companies into thinking they need to use wazoo bleaching.
It's sad, I remember when Naked Capitalism was a really useful site. But about four years ago they lost their grip and started talking nonsense.
In answer to the question asked by the title of the post; when this wave of VC funding finally runs its course (as they are ponying up for 40% of the average journey currently).
It's a race between that and a monopoly and price hike.
Yes sorry, the perils of commenting on a tab that hasn't been refreshed in hours.
The word missing here is "expansion". Uber claims to be EBIT positive in its developed markets as of June this year - the losses are happening in new markets where it has massive subsidy and setup costs. Uber UK is certainly making a pretax profit as of last year - its accounts are public. And I'd imagine the same would be true of other mature markets in the US.
I'd think if it were true of mature markets in the U.S., they'd have taken the company public.
I mean, this stuff is not difficult to find out. But instead people are so convinced that Uber is some combination of grossly evil and horrifically stupid that they go on thinking it must be losing 40 cents for every dollar of cab fare they get, and never even wonder if that might be inaccurate.
141: why? Heaven knows they don't need to IPO to raise money, they've got billions already.
I'm a bit hazy on the second step, but I'm pretty sure the 3rd is "profit".
There are ways to do that other than IPOs.
Good grief, the BBC has cocked it up as well. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38252405
If you believe this, drivers make in the range of $20/hr-$30/hr. That sounds high to me, but let's say that's true.
I can take a half-hour ride for $10 to $20. Even if you ignore the cost of their 2000 engineers and inefficient technical infrastructure, that's close to breakeven. If you factor that in, and the fact that the hourly rate above also counts time when drivers aren't actively driving people, it's not hard to imagine that they're losing money on a ride.
Can you really take a half hour ride for $10? Honestly? I just checked the estimator and a half hour ride in central London would cost about £20. In New York going 10 miles in half an hour costs at least $23.
Also the article you cite explicitly states that the rate does not, I say again, does not include time spent not actively driving a paying passenger.
In DC I regularly pay in the neighborhood of $20 for a half hour ride, fwiw.
Heaven knows they don't need to IPO to raise money, they've got billions already.
IPOs don't exist to raise money. They exist to allow those who have already invested to cash out.
It's $1.00 for three minutes on the little airplane ride at the museum near here. So that's only $10/half hour.
"Sister, what's an 'airplane ride?'"
"$20 an hour, same as in town"
||
My sister is trying to get on Medicaid. Apparently since Trump got elected the Medicaid office has seen a tripling of applications from people trying to get under the wire in case there's a grandfather clause when he tries to yank the rug out from under everyone on government assistance.
|>
The uber-esque sector has abysmal labor practices from top to toe, stemming from the same ideological commitment from whence flows their avoidance of sensible safety regs, in my exclusively personal opinion. That's enough for me to decline to patronize any of them. (Professional obligations prevent any further participation in this discussion.)
It depends. I looked up SFO to my hotel and google maps shows 22 minutes without traffic and it was $10 close to rush hour. A similar ride in the Seattle area usually comes in a bit below $20.
I don't get cabs much, but I did call one for Kid B when I was up in Newcastle with her - a minicab firm, they have an app but I just phoned them, and got several texts telling me it was booked and then on its way, with the colour, make and reg of the car, plus a link to click to track its progress. It's been so long since I last used a minicab (occasionally get a black taxi home from the station) that I was quite impressed with all this 21st century-ness. And then I could track the car and see that it had indeed gone to her flat, so that was nice.
I looked up my uber receipt. It was a bit over 30 minutes and almost exactly $10. According to the receipt, the $10 includes a $3.80 surcharge for getting picked up from SFO.
160: and from this we can conclude that New York Uber drivers make about $25 an hour, like the article says, and San Francisco ones don't. Or at least SF UberX drivers don't. The premium ones are pulling in $65 for that same half-hour run.
But I am still puzzled by how you're getting those low rates. Right now (so very little traffic and no surge pricing) Uber is estimating $22-28 from SFO to Mission - a journey which Google Maps says should take 19 minutes. That's more in line with the NY and London fare structures.
97/112 - Hailo works pretty well in Dublin. It's what I use most of the time I take a cab. There are a lot of taxis in general (unlike say 15 years ago when the numbers were much more limited).
Indeed - though it also misquotes the erroneous Naked Capitalism as saying that Uber is paying 60% of the cost of each ride!
"You see, Arthur, what you've done there is that you've taken something that is famously wrong, and you've got it wrong. And yet, in doing so, you haven't made it right..."
Nonetheless, I think the question at the core of the article deserves an answer.
165: Here we have something called the Ride for people which disabilities which is under contract with the public transit system (the MBTA, also known as the T). It's fairly expensive to operate even though the drivers are paid less. Over the past several years, they've gotten much more stringent, arguing that buses and stations have become more accessible and fewer people need The Ride. Don't see how subsidizing Uber is sustainable.
165: I just don't see it as a very interesting or novel question. "This town council has decided to outsource a public service to a private company. But what will they do if the private company goes bankrupt?" Well, same as last time that happened? This isn't exactly unbroken ground.
I was successful at taking Lyft to the airport. I'm not going to be nearly as successful at taking a United flight out of the airport.
I have a table, an outlet, and a Pokemon stop. I guess I can work.
It's possible the rental car counters at the Lincoln airport are the most inefficient use if human effort since they stopped making prisoners break rocks.
What makes the rental car counters at Lincoln worse than all the other rental car counters on the planet?
No passengers.
The airport is now free of wild pokemon.
A bit like the rental car counter at TGV Avignon, then. (I can't speak for les Pokemons)
taxis in america suck horribly except in manhattan you guys. all of you boycotting uber a) either live there b) can drive c) have a car d) are pretty broke and take public transit but never uber? y'all last are being stupid noble then, because fuck, public trans is not ever good enough. I have driven for like 4 months as an adult ever, and it's awesome in a way, but if you'd like someone else to drive, and park, and buy gas, and pay for car shit, then you would like uber a lot.
my 30-minute drive from paradise valley to the mayo clinic was only $14.64 today, not unusual, though it can be 25. in narnia taxis come pretty well right when you call, and have since before apps, by guessing your two most likely pick-up locations based on your history and time of day and assigning those to "press one" and "two," and only later trying to get an operator. however, ALL U.S. TAXIS NOT IN LOWER MANHATTAN BITE WEEN, and plenty such taxis dine on ween as well. and I have been hit on by sketchy cabbies plenty. one uber driver has been sketch and wanted to get girl x's number to invite her to a prayer group (she was riding alone the one time ever.) she gave him my number; I reported him to uber, and he was fired. the reason there's no wide band of info in the number ratings is because you basically lose your job if you have too may 4 or below ratings.
taxis in america suck horribly except in manhattan you guys. all of you boycotting uber a) either live there b) can drive c) have a car d) are pretty broke and take public transit but never uber?
B and C cover, like, 80 or 90% of Americans, so. Like I said above, I don't doubt that Uber is superior to existing cab service lots of places, which would make it a net good regardless of the company's sketchiness. That's really an argument for reforming taxi regulation rather than for Uber per se, though, if you're looking at it from a public policy perspective. If you're looking at it from a personal transportation perspective, then sure, go ahead and use Uber where it's better than other options.
Weirdly, my best option for SFO, combining price and convenience, has turned out to be driving to BART and using their airport parking option. Uber: too expensive from where I am. SuperShuttle: same. Public transit: not that inexpensive, plus schedules don't always work out for it to even be possible. Airport parking: way too expensive. But BART station airport parking is only $7/day.
Oh wow. SuperShuttle! I'd forgotten they existed. I looked through my email and found my old receipts. Based on the distance, they look a little more expensive than Uber where I used to live.
They operate in Seattle, but if I put in my address (on the eastside), the only options are a a "Black Car" at $112 and an "Luxury SUV" at $200. I just looked up the equivalent price for an Uber Black and it's $60. A regular Uber is a bit over $20.