[googlemike]

"To be sure, many drivers from Uber are still earning more than they could get in other blue-collar jobs in India. The national minimum wage in India is only about $2.50 a day."

No substantial article here folks. Just negative sounding clickbait because "Uber" is in the title.

[ryder9]

Odd you call them out for "clickbaiting" yet yourself selectively post quotes

__________________________

But as Uber slashed incentives, Raut’s earnings dwindled swiftly. His income dropped to about $540 a month this year and he defaulted on his taxi loan payments. Deciding after an accident that he couldn’t afford to fix the vehicle, he quit Uber and now his monthly income, from a new job driving a truck, has crashed to $200.

“There is no benefit in driving for Uber ... my life was much better just as a cook,” said 26-year-old Raut.

[xyzzy_plugh]

Should that be surprising? What requires more skill/effort/education? What are the prevailing wage?

[adjkant]

When the company advertises much higher income for drivers and then slashes it you can only place so much blame on the driver for not understanding complex economics and politics that led to the issue. I think there's a very clear moral case again Uber (and others) for false advertising and clear manipulation of drivers. Legal, likely not but IANAL.

[ryan_j_naughton]

The fares/wages aren't fixed and change due to market conditions, just like in almost every other industry with a commoditized market. Drivers are truly commoditized, so their wages should compete down towards the prevailing wage for unskilled labor in India (or at least for chauffeur wages). It isn't a surprise at all and doesn't seem immoral.

The real injustice is the financially binding contracts the drivers signed for their vehicles. I work at Fair Financial, and we are Uber's primary partner to get drivers into cars in the US. Our cars don't have any long-term commitment so drivers can return them whenever they want. Thus, if the pay isn't good enough from Uber, they don't feel trapped and simply can decide it isn't worth it and walk away.

[adjkant]

> It isn't a surprise at all and doesn't seem immoral.

If their advertising was not saying the exact opposite it'd be fine. That is not what they either said or implied. The pay cut alone is not what makes it immoral.

Flexible contract are great - why do so many drivers not have them though?

Plus, it should be noted that the market of riders and drivers is not causing the cuts. The fundamental flaw in Uber's business model is causing the problem as they push towards a very far off goal of profitability.

[ryan_j_naughton]

>Plus, it should be noted that the market of riders and drivers is not causing the cuts. The fundamental flaw in Uber's business model is causing the problem as they push towards a very far off goal of profitability.

That's a ridiculous statement. `Uber's business model` is as a market connecting drivers and riders. If they need to be profitable, then they need to stop subsidizing rides. The result is that either prices for customers have to increase or drivers' wages decrease. Given that drivers are highly commoditized unskilled labor, they don't have any pricing power to maintain higher wages.

[kopos]

In reality, every driver I talked to knew, that the sort of incentives that Uber gave were unsustainable in the month term. The guys who came onto the bandwagon in the early days made great incentives, the reality is coming home now. The life for blue collar jobs was not going to be rosy for ever

[aadityachauhan1]

"Mounting debt from taxi loans was a key concern. Many drivers took loans to buy cabs, while some leased cars from the companies themselves."

I think this is the aspect the article is trying to point out. The earnings have halved from what they used to be. The drivers went all in based their lives/future on sustainable earnings from Uber and then were all but abandoned by Uber.

[MuffinFlavored]

Why did Uber change the rates? Was it driven by an influx in drivers coupled to a relatively stable demand for rides?

[adjkant]

It was driven by Uber needing to become profitable and either having to raise ride prices (and lose customers) or lower driver cuts. If there was an abundance of drivers you'd see Ubers/Lyfts waiting around with no one in them constantly, which is not my experience based on wait times in major metropolitan cities (NYC, Boston, SF, LA), where drivers usually are booked for the next ride before they even drop me off.

It's also misinformation and deceptive advertising by Uber and others that don't educate drivers on the real costs of driving for them when it comes to gas, car wear and tear, surge pricing models and how it affects them, etc.

[rightbyte]

It was a similar story in London where people borrowed money for cars, then Uber cut pay stranding people with loans.

Uber seems to use "incentives" and some kind of quest system rather than just paying the drivers the full amount. It's similar to bonus systems on casinos, where the goal is to keep the player hooked.

[SamReidHughes]

They can offer their services to other ride sharing companies, no? Ultimately consumers will take the best deal, and that means there can only be so many ride share drivers before the earnings get too low. It's like that guy in SF that recorded himself complaining to Kalanick that nobody wants to ride his limo. Somehow that's Uber's fault.

[toss1]

No, it is specifically about Uber's practices.

The point of the article is that Uber enticed people into a new way of earning a living with higher pay rates, kept these up long enough to convince the workers to go into debt to purchase a vehicle, then slashed the pay rates so much (~58%) that they cannot even afford to keep paying for the vehicle.

This is not mere anti-Uber clickbait; it is a record of what Uber did.

While it is probably within the law, it is certainly unethical exploitation of a very unequal power relationship.

There is a reason behind the frequency of "negative sounding" headlines about Uber -- it is because they build a company on fundamentally unethical practices predicated on screwing the other guy first, whether it is the cities, the govt, the drivers, or their own employees -- whatever they can get away with.

Perhaps that is OK, with you, but it is not the way to build a sustainable business or society.

[sharadov]

Yes, they were better of earning 2.50/day, but then they got ensnared by deceptive advertising that promises a certain income. I don't expect a taxi driver with a basic education in India to figure that out. Everything about them from Travis Kalanick, to the harassment suits to them jacking up fares during the NYC explosions, speaks of a shady company.

[gramanat]

Well, a typical personal driver, who drives a few times a day makes about Rs 15,000 a month - about $10/day. I would expect a Uber driver to make more in profit after taxi loan payments, depreciation and gas