|
|
|
|
|
|
by imagist
3556 days ago
|
|
|
Just like store owners pay rent for their building... I'm not saying the rent seeking is good--on the contrary, I think it's very bad. But the fact is that your views on which is better for drivers are not shared by drivers. You're also only looking at the current situation--I have a lot more trust that taxi laws can be reformed than that a large amoral corporation whose business is built around loopholes in regulation will self-regulate against their own interests. Even if you think Uber is better for drivers now, I doubt that will be the case for long. |
|
|
Taxi companies are large amoral corporations too. And if we were going to reform Taxi law (not to build higher walls, but to help drivers) we'd have done it a century ago, so I question that trust.
> the fact is that your views on which is better for drivers are not shared by drivers.
> Even if you think Uber is better for drivers
Which drivers? The Uber drivers I've talked to have liked the easy hours and no-hassle shift selection - including the ability to wait for surge pricing. They love the risk-free factor in that they get a percentage of every dollar earned, without having to hit a minimum like a cabbie. (Not to mention the concept of going in the hole.) None of them considered themselves a career driver, they all have a reason for being between other jobs.
I've spoken to two groups of cabbies, those who rent a medallion, and those who own (a share of) a medallion. The owners dislike Uber in the same way they'd dislike a new competitor coming in and doubling the number of cabs in the city. The renters see Uber/Lyft/etc as just another boss.
I've never talked to an employee driver who was upset by ridesharing companies.