[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.