[toomuchtodo]

Better to support legislation that pushes the minimum wage up for rideshare and taxi drivers in top markets (see: Lyft $17/hr minimum in NYC). Faster death than trying to bleed Uber and Lyft dry through rides (which could take forever depending on investor taste for losses), and full self driving won't arrive anytime soon. Ride the populism wave.

[eldavido]

This is silly. All this does is make it impossible for new competitors to enter, as they won't get enough riders to cover that minimum.

This is a ticket to an Uber monopoly.

[jimmywanger]

So basically you're saying that you should use laws to send them out of business instead of basic economics?

Why wouldn't you pass a tax on search and social media companies that sets the minimum wage of engineers to 1 million dollars a year if you want to break up twitter, google, and facebook? That's logical equivalancy.

[toomuchtodo]

Basic economics have failed when a company that has existed for over a decade without any ability to turn a profit IPOs. And indeed, I am all for using laws against abusive corporate entities.

I am also for using data protection laws (and not minimum wage regulations) to break the ability of social media companies to survive (or at the very least, rein them in). Have to use the right tool for a job.

[inflatableDodo]

Laws against abusive company practices I am all for. Laws written with a specific company in mind, less so. Of course a specific company's behaviour can be a trigger for the drafting of a law, but if so, that law should be carefully thought through in light of the general rather than the specific issues, otherwise you just end up playing kingmaker.

[jimmywanger]

> Basic economics have failed when a company that has existed for over a decade without any ability to turn a profit IPOs.

The markets are irrational sometimes. Basic economics assume rational behaviour, which is something that cannot be assumed.

> And indeed, I am all for using laws against abusive corporate entities.

I don't think you can pass laws against companies specifically. First, define what you mean by abusive. Uber/Lyft doesn't have a gun against your head to force you to drive.

You have to pass them against specific behaviours. Also, for ridesharing companies, what does "per hour mean"? Time you spent logged in, adding time you spent stuck in traffic getting to the customer, or time you are actively moving towards your destination after pickup? There are obviously unintended side effects to give in to knee jerk reactions to something that you feel is wrong. Would Uber/Lyft drivers be happy if the companies implode and they're stuck with a bunch of worthless predatory leases on cars? Or the fact that part time drivers no longer have that option to at least make some money?

[inflatableDodo]

>which could take forever depending on investor taste for losses

If the existing investors had much more of a taste for losses, why the IPO?

[toomuchtodo]

Stupid retail money. Greater fool theory.

[inflatableDodo]

But if the existing investors thought that Uber will win if they only just piss away a bit more money, they would have dumped the money in rather than let the stock go to the public.

[toomuchtodo]

Yes.

[inflatableDodo]

So therefore we have a very good idea of the taste for losses amoung existing Uber investors. And the taste for losses in the stock market is fairly guessable.