[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.

[adjkant]

I believe I said exactly that above. I just don't think that either choice will result in a successful business.

Uber and Lyft got popular because they made taxis artificially cheap as well as the convenience and efficiency. Take away the cheap aspect and the market will significantly shrink.

I don't think they can squeeze the drivers enough to be profitable because drivers will leave for other unskilled jobs if the wage drops below them. I don't know the internals of their business, but the strike today and the arbitration play seem to be showing that's fast approaching.

[kopos]

Uber and Ola have changed the perception for on demand transportation in a big way. There is a price elasticity that the market has demonstrated. With public transport being bad as it is, these hail ride apps are not going away. Maybe a slight decrease but the world is not going to preUber days