[TheSpiceIsLife]

> Uber's (slimy, IMO, but significant nonetheless) major savings is pushing vehicle maintenance and deprecation costs onto their drivers.

This is fallacious. The end-user pays for vehicle maintenance and depreciation. There cannot be any savings by pushing around which party writes the cheque as the only source of income to pay that cheque can be the end-user.

[ghostly_s]

Oh really? So drivers are sending their maintenance bills into Uber and getting reimbursed for them?

[lmm]

You're assuming perfect information, rational behaviour, and the same maintenance standards. Uber can save money at the expense of their drivers if drivers underestimate maintenance and depreciation costs. If they manage to shift liability for inadequate maintenance onto drivers they could also save money by under-maintaining and then allowing the resulting fines to bankrupt individuals rather than cost the company profits.

[sidlls]

That's practically tautological, and therefore not terribly helpful in analyzing the distribution of costs across parties to the transaction.