[imgabe]

> 1. exempt all drivers from getting basic benefits like health insurance

> or else

> 2. we're turning off our apps in California

If you create a law that makes it unprofitable for a company to operate, are you really surprised that the company stops operating?

[vkou]

The company always has the option to lower wages, or raise prices on their product.

It would, of course, mean that their law-compliant competitors would eat their marketshare.

They are trying to tell us with a straight face, that a taxi-in-an-app business is impossible to operate under Prop 22. This is, of course, completely untrue.

[boucher]

To be clear, just so people don't vote mistakenly: these companies want to "operate under Prop 22"; Uber & Lyft are the primary supporters of Prop 22.

They do not want to operate under AB5, the current law, which Prop 22 seeks to invalidate.

If you want to compel Uber and others to follow the current law (which requires them to give employee benefits to drivers), you should vote NO on Prop 22.

[imgabe]

I'm not sure I follow. The company can lower wages or raise prices to comply with the law. But then other companies, that also comply with the law, will eat their marketshare? How?

Where are all these competitors that offer full-time with benefits driver positions at Uber prices? Why aren't they sucking up the entire pool of available drivers right now? Why do we need a law to force Uber / Lyft to provide benefits if other companies already do it?

[vkou]

> I'm not sure I follow. The company can lower wages or raise prices to comply with the law. But then other companies, that also comply with the law, will eat their marketshare? How?

Uber and sharecropping firms like it compete with eachother, as well as with traditional taxi firms.

As I understand it, traditional taxi firms are already largely in compliance with the proposed legislature.

The demand for taxis is not going to go away anywhere. You can operate a taxi company (traditional, or sharecropper) with, or without prop 22. The only difference will be in the price of rides - for what is largely a luxury good.

[imgabe]

Something can't simultaneously have inelastic demand and also be a luxury good. Those things are kind of opposite.

Demand for taxis has dropped a lot because of Uber. Uber also gets passengers who would have otherwise not made the trip, taken a bus, or driven drunk. If Uber is no longer an option they'll go back to those options,not to taxis.

> The only difference will be in the price of rides - for what is largely a luxury good.

The price of rides makes a big difference and hugely effects demand. I don't know why you're treating it like it doesn't matter. Lower prices open the service up to more people. Indoor plumbing was once a luxury good. Generally progress means turning luxuries into commodities, not the opposite.

[takeda]

Their competitors that are obeying the law are taxis. Uber and Lyft were able to get lower costs, because they were using loopholes in the law, which AR5 fixes.

Currently Uber and Lyft don't even compete against each other, they compete against their drivers.