[dnautics]

I don't think it was unreasonable to consider a $97K car as a business expenditure was such a bad idea. Let's say you get a 5-year loan, liberally that's about $30k a year, which is more than covered by the cost and business that Uber (UberBlack) was generating at the time; Until of course the volume of UberBlack got eaten into by the presence of UberX on top of fare cuts.

[yazaddaruvala]

Making the correct short-term business decision without fully understanding the long-term market forces in that domain, can still be a bad long-term decision.

It is the business owner's (investor's) responsibility to understand and plan for the long-term. Not planning for the long-term is exactly what happened here. I do not believe this man should have been disrespected, however, his decision to buy a car he could not afford, was his own and was objectively a bad decision.

Do you know the story of the grasshopper and the ants[0]? Regardless of who is controlling the weather (in our case, Uber). Its the grasshopper's fault for not storing food for the winter.

[0] http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/AntGra.shtm...

[pyrale]

So you're saying making sound decisions regarding driving for Uber requires good economic skills, long-term planning capabilities aswell as insider information regarding Uber's policy ?

This sounds like an unrealistic expectation. One would argue Uber was either disloyal or disillusioned if they rely on such people to advance their business.

[yazaddaruvala]

I'm saying, making sound investments[0], requires good economic skills, long-term planning capabilities, and an understanding of the risks.

Here Uber changing policy or pricing is a risk! In this case, to make a sound investment, you need to calibrate the rewards against that risk.

Only looking at the potential upside, not realizing that the risk exists, is foolish.

Faulting Uber, for being flexible to market forces, is naive. Not faulting the driver for making an uneducated investment, that is unreasonable.

[0] Either to facilitate driving for Uber, or something else

[pyrale]

> Not faulting the driver for making an uneducated investment, that is unreasonable.

The interesting part happens when you understand that it is impossible to make an educated decision to become a Uber driver without having a relation of trust between Uber and drivers (because otherwise you would need insider information about Uber's business innovations, to get fixed pricing agreement for a given duration, which Uber will never do, etc).

Then, you don't fault Uber for being "flexible to market forces", you may fault them for engaging in deceptive business, just like you would blame a multi level marketing scheme. And when you specifically look at Uber's strategy to mislead potential drivers, there's tons of telling stuff.

In that light, you can still blame the drivers for making bad decisions (discussing the reality of Homo œconomicus would drive us out of scope). But you must also fault Uber for maliciously luring their drivers in a scheme that is not sustainable for them.

[yazaddaruvala]

Ahh, yes! I whole heartedly agree with you that Uber is(are?) an asshole for luring drivers utilizing disingenuous information.

I'm glad they lost this case: http://www.moneylife.in/article/uber-to-pay-20-million-for-a...

[AstralStorm]

Welcome to real capitalism, where only insiders can really prosper for sure.