[ars]

> as contractors, meaning they don't have to pay them minimum wage or benefits, which lets them undercut taxis.

That's not really true though. Their pay is higher to make up the difference.

No, the main thing is that Uber doesn't have to guarantee them fulltime work, or at least any kind of minimum amount of work.

i.e. Uber can say "No work today, too bad".

[smallgovt]

Uh, no, Uber doesn't have to guarantee full-time work regardless of employee or contractor classification -- hence the term "part-time employment".

[AlexandrB]

> Their pay is higher to make up the difference.

Citation needed. Please include costs of owning, operating, and maintaining an automobile in your calculations.

[ars]

Are you implying that millions of Uber drivers are idiots and can't do basic math to decide if it's worth working or not?

[ska]

> Their pay is higher to make up the difference.

I thought part of the problem was that it isn't, in general.

[ars]

People (especially California) would like you to believe that. Uber drivers are rational beings, they know exactly how much money they are making, and they are aware of their taxes.

If Uber paid their Social Security and Medicare taxes, then Uber would just lower their base pay, and the net would stay the same. Or in other words the pay is higher because the driver has to pay those taxes.

[ska]

I don't know one way or the other, but I have heard the argument that if you actually do all the math, particular with the reductions in pay more recently, it doesn't all net out.

Generally people do not act as fully rational economic actors, so we can't assume that this is not true based on the fact that people still choose to do it.

Which isn't to say they shouldn't have that option.