[PatientTrades]

> This is also quite illegal - you can not pay to work

You do know the offer is optional right? If a driver doesn't want to pay $115 for the 33% rate increase then they don't have to. Did you read that part? Also, many drivers could benefit from this especially if they drive full time in popular areas.

[drewrv]

There are all sorts of optional deals that are illegal.

[lightedman]

"You do know the offer is optional right?"

You do know that such an offer is illegal, right? It is literally "If you pay us, we'll pay you more later on." It's the actual beginning of a Ponzi Scheme.

[AnthonyMouse]

> You do know that such an offer is illegal, right?

Which law does it violate?

> It's the actual beginning of a Ponzi Scheme.

Your argument is of the form "Romans build roads, therefore people who build roads are Romans."

Ponzi schemes don't have actual customers, which inherently leaves the people at the bottom of the pyramid holding the bag.

Uber pays drivers from fares. There is no pyramid.

[michaelmrose]

Ponzi schemes are defined by the fact that you can earn some revenue but not enough to sustain the employees at the base of the pyramid while having some means to bring in new players who will help you earn enough to keep going usually by contributing some part of their income to you.

Its a scam because their is a finite pool of potential idiots and when you run out the bottom of your pyramid collapses taking subsequent layers with it eventually.

If a multi level marketing company actually provides enough wealth for the bottom level to function then it isn't a ponzi scheme.

[lightedman]

Uber's been running at a consistent loss.

Ponzi Schemes don't have customers? There have been plenty of "multi-level marketing' businesses selling things like perfumes, knives, even candle wax, and have been ruled as Ponzi/Pyramid Schemes. It's the exact same behavior - pay us to make money.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Uber's been running at a consistent loss.

So do a million other startups. That doesn't mean the drivers don't get their money.

> Ponzi Schemes don't have customers?

The majority of the scam's revenue comes from payments from workers rather than sales to customers.

> It's the exact same behavior - pay us to make money.

Pyramid schemes have pyramids.

[lightedman]

"Pyramid schemes have pyramids."

Almost every business has a pyramid structure - that's literally basic business management for all but the most n00b of startups. It's the behavior that defines a Pyramid Scheme and this behavior matches it almost 100% to the definition.

In fact there's a nice database of plenty of other companies acting EXACTLY like this and subsequently getting their butts handed to them in court - http://www.mlmlegal.com/legal-cases/Illinois_v_Unimax.php is one of my favorite cases to read because it very clearly demonstrates what Uber is doing here is illegal - just because you aren't required to do it or buy into it doesn't mean it isn't illegal in the first place.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Almost every business has a pyramid structure

So do Egyptian Pyramids but that isn't the relevant structure.

Do you really not understand how a multi-level marketing scam works? You pay to sign up, then you get paid for signing people up. The obvious problem is that this is recursive and exponential, which quickly exhausts the available supply of suckers so that the people at the bottom lose money because there is no one for them to sign up.

That dynamic is not at play here. There is no recursion. You don't pay to sign up and then get paid for signing people up, you pay to sign up and then get paid for driving people around. The people who get driven around don't have to sign people up.

There are lots of professions where you have to pay to work. Many trades require the tradesman to buy their own tools. A proprietor who wants to work in a booth at a fair has to pay for the booth. That doesn't make them Ponzi schemes.

[viraptor]

The higher rate is there to incentivise more people. The stable state is at the point where enough drivers opt-in that they all get to just the break-even point.