[spinlock]

I think that was Lyft's model but Uber was "everybody's private driver" for their first product. They were black cars with professional drivers who did do it as a full time job.

Now, "everybody's private driver" was 2x the cost of a cab (at least) so I think it was a better deal for the drivers. But, to your point, the barriers to entry were owning a black car, being licensed, and Uber vetted their drivers very carefully.

Totally different from what they're doing now.

But, I've also never met an Uber driver -- who used to be a cabbie -- that didn't think Uber was a _better_ deal than driving a cab. If you're a cab driver, you also have to rent a cab with a medalion which was an astronomical cost compared to just buying and maintaining a car.

So, I think this study comes off as disingenuous for not comparing Uber and Lyft to the traditional job of driving a cab.

[santoshalper]

That's my problem - these studies all assume that Uber and Lyft are competing against real jobs. The reality is that they are competing with jobs that are far worse and winning as a result. The Uber drivers I've talked to are glad to not being working at CVS or Burger King.

The real question is how does the richest nation in history think it is OK to pay adults a sub-living wage to do degrading menial labor so that a small number of people can be incredibly wealthy.