| > That happens with Uber consistently. The cab companies hate them with a white hot fire and there are plenty of media outlets who are happy to take a story from a PR flack, especially when it generates page views. > When people complain about surge pricing and then complain about things that mitigate surge pricing, that is pretty good evidence that they just want to complain about something. That's an ad-hominem. If you're going to claim people are complaining just to complain then you need to support your case that this sleazy pay-to-play scheme isn't a sleazy pay-to-play scheme. Just because Uber is trying to fix something bad (surge pricing) doesn't mean their solution (this ridiculous scheme) isn't also bad. > > What makes this potentially unethical (in my mind) is where the price is set. If it's set at a point where Uber's models predict the average benefit to a driver is $0 then this is essentially shifting the risk to their employees. > But in that case why would anyone take the deal? The first problem is that drivers have no way to know that until they've lost money on the deal. Uber has a team of accountants to figure out their expected returns while the average driver does not. Also, as others have pointed out, there's a conflict of interest for Uber because they control who gets called up, so they can avoid sending rides to drivers who are about to cross the threshold for a payout from this scheme. > If they did that then the drivers would pay $115 to make back $116 (or $110) and then never do it again because it's not worth the risk. It's not that simple, though. Since Uber controls who gets rides, they can make sure that some portion of drivers come out ahead using this scheme. When other drivers claim they lost money or just broke even, the "winning" drivers can chime in that the scheme worked great for them. The end result is confusion and uncertainty, so that nobody outside of Uber itself really knows one way or the other how it will turn out. With as many drivers as Uber has, they can probably fake it for quite a while. |
Its an explanation of their motives.
> If you're going to claim people are complaining just to complain then you need to support your case that this sleazy pay-to-play scheme isn't a sleazy pay-to-play scheme.
It has an obvious benefit in increasing available supply. Once a driver has paid the fee they have 35% more incentive to provide service.
> Just because Uber is trying to fix something bad (surge pricing) doesn't mean their solution (this ridiculous scheme) isn't also bad.
Neither of them is actually bad.
Bad is the inability to get a ride during high demand because nobody is doing either of those things.
> The first problem is that drivers have no way to know that until they've lost money on the deal.
That only works the first time. After that the driver has their own experience to draw on.
> Since Uber controls who gets rides, they can make sure that some portion of drivers come out ahead using this scheme.
In which case only those drivers will sign up next time and the pool of drivers willing to sign up shrinks every time.
> When other drivers claim they lost money or just broke even, the "winning" drivers can chime in that the scheme worked great for them.
Nobody cares what other people say when their own personal experience says something else.
It's easy to trick anyone once, but then they won't trust you anymore. People not trusting you forevermore is an expensive price to pay for a one time payout.