Uber Will 'Shut Down' in California If It Must Classify Drivers as Employees

[Elegiac]

The whole business model of Uber is "you set your own schedule." But at the same time, demand far outstrips supply, and drivers are desperate for more work if they're working for Uber in the first place, so many of them are working well over 40 hours a week.

And frankly, the model can only be sustained by less drivers working full time, as opposed to more drives working part time, because operating costs go up the more drivers you have.

I still can't believe a century later we're still having to have the discussion over whether or not taxi licenses serve a useful function.

All because this particular unpaid labor scheme uses a smartphone.

[eschatological]

The best part is most taxi services adapted and have an app now too. I can get a yellow taxi in NYC from an app no problem. It's obviously far less centralized than Uber and you might need one for every city (or, yanno, just have your home city, and then when visiting elsewhere, do it how us old people did it, and just.....call for a taxi), but it exists.

[Elegiac]

The best part is most taxi services adapted and have an app now too. I can get a yellow taxi in NYC from an app no problem. It's obviously far less centralized than Uber and you might need one for every city (or, yanno, just have your home city, and then when visiting elsewhere, do it how us old people did it, and just.....call for a taxi), but it exists.

People complain about how expensive transpiration in the US is and then insist on supporting the existence of suburbs and exurbs.

[Kellhound]

People complain about how expensive transpiration in the US is and then insist on supporting the existence of suburbs and exurbs.

Private transportation is not really that expensive in the US, especially when considering its velocity of travel in most areas compared to public transport.

[Elegiac]

Private transportation is not really that expensive in the US

Talk to me again when y'all stop spending between 7-10% of your personal incomes on gasoline.

[Kellhound]

Talk to me again when y'all stop spending between 7-10% of your personal incomes on gasoline.

I spend less that 5% and drive 90 miles a day (in 1/2 time than it took me to travel 40 miles using public trans). I could still take public trans for my commute, but it would cost me over 4X per day to do so. If I moved into the city my travel costs may go down, but my housing costs would skyrocket and my quality of life would drop.

[Elegiac]

I spend less that 5%

I don't care, we're talking about what most Americans do.

[Kellhound]

I don't care, we're talking about what most Americans do.

You said to talk to you again when I spent less than 7%. I also spend less that 20% of my gross income on rent for a 3 bedroom house with garage.

[unfilteredJW]

You said to talk to you again when I spent less than 7%. I also spend less that 20% of my gross income on rent for a 3 bedroom house with garage.

Your anecdotes don't matter.

[Kellhound]

Your anecdotes don't matter.

Because it doesn't fit you narrative.

[Hinastorm]

I spend less that 5% and drive 90 miles a day (in 1/2 time than it took me to travel 40 miles using public trans). I could still take public trans for my commute, but it would cost me over 4X per day to do so. If I moved into the city my travel costs may go down, but my housing costs would skyrocket and my quality of life would drop.

Of course you're free to choose your own quality of life, but i'd contend having a 90 mile daily round trip commute is a pretty big blow to a good quality of life.

Especially if it ends up fucking up your back, like excessive sitting did for me, and millions of others.

Can't believe we've done so little to combat housing costs in cities. It's unreal.

[eschatological]

Of course you're free to choose your own quality of life, but i'd contend having a 90 mile daily round trip commute is a pretty big blow to a good quality of life.

Especially if it ends up fucking up your back, like excessive sitting did for me, and millions of others.

Can't believe we've done so little to combat housing costs in cities. It's unreal.

Mainly because cities have had to subsidize poor rural areas for the last 50 years. Their taxes are high, it flows out of the cities into the rural areas, and the rural areas bitch about the city.

[Elegiac]

Can't believe we've done so little to combat housing costs in cities. It's unreal.

The insanity of American transportation is linked heavily to the insanity of American zoning standards, mind you.

It's very difficult to service many if not most American metropolitan areas simply because they are so much less dense than metropolitan areas elsewhere. This is partially because of the ingrained car culture that crops up in the absence of broad public transportation, but also because of a rather baffling aversion to mixed-use zoning of the sort where you'd see walkable, medium density communities cropping up with people living in buildings above communal and commercial areas.

Oh yeah I should also mention that initiatives against public transportation in the United States kinda start cropping up in a big way shortly after public transportation in most of America was desegregated. *sips tea* So there's that particular animus favoring suburb/exurb style communities also, which you see pretty blatantly on display in the way propertied rural people talk about urban areas as being "crime infested" or whatever Reagan would have called it.

[Kellhound]

Of course you're free to choose your own quality of life, but i'd contend having a 90 mile daily round trip commute is a pretty big blow to a good quality of life.

Especially if it ends up fucking up your back, like excessive sitting did for me, and millions of others.

Can't believe we've done so little to combat housing costs in cities. It's unreal.

I spend less time commuting living outside the metro area driving into than when I lived inside it.
Housing cost= limited supply X high demand.

[Elegiac]

Housing cost= limited supply X high demand.

Cool. Ban people from owning second homes, then.

[Kellhound]

Cool. Ban people from owning second homes, then.

So no private rentals then?

[Elegiac]

So no private rentals then?

If it's truly a function of supply and demand then long term rentals wouldn't be needed in a market with sufficient supply.

And yes, quite frankly; landlords are parasites by definition.

[Kellhound]

If it's truly a function of supply and demand then long term rentals wouldn't be needed in a market with sufficient supply.

And yes, quite frankly; landlords are parasites by definition.

Demand for single family homes is what drives the creation of suburbs. Apartments suck, high-rise ones exponentially so. Government run ones suck even more.

Using that line of thinking, everyone on welfare is a parasite by definition as well.

[Elegiac]

Demand for single family homes is what drives the creation of suburbs. Apartments suck, high-rise ones exponentially so. Government run ones suck even more.

*points up*

Oh yeah I should also mention that initiatives against public transportation in the United States kinda start cropping up in a big way shortly after public transportation in most of America was desegregated. *sips tea* So there's that particular animus favoring suburb/exurb style communities also, which you see pretty blatantly on display in the way propertied rural people talk about urban areas as being "crime infested" or whatever Reagan would have called it.

We get it.

Using that line of thinking, everyone on welfare is a parasite by definition as well.

Public assistance is a service. Its recipients aren't skimming profits from anyone's need to have somewhere to live, landlords do.

[Kellhound]

*points up*



We get it.



Public assistance is a service. Its recipients aren't skimming profits from anyone's need to have somewhere to live, landlords do.

*looks up out the window and sees stars* Your point?


Its still parasitic by definition. Profits are still skimmed from public assistance by the government.