[imglorp]

What?

Uber saw adjusted EBITDA of $2.5 billion, up 35% year-over-year" in 4q25 (per them). Money poured in.

I have no idea why people keep talking about raising pay is a problem. Workers paid more spend more, stimulating growth at all levels. Economics 101.

[gruez]

> Workers paid more spend more, stimulating growth at all levels. Economics 101.

But per the original study, they didn't get paid more?

[philipallstar]

Because then fewer people will use Uber. Customers don't have a whole-economy view. If you raised the price of an Uber to $200 a ride minimum, would that be a good thing? After all, workers paid more spend more, stimulating growth at all levels!

It's a bit like California raising fast food minimum wages causing thousands of jobs to be lost[0].

[0] https://tfppwire.com/new-data-shows-california-lost-staggeri...

[oblio]

Yeah, about that source:

> About

> TFPP Wire helps you stay ahead with breaking news, analysis, and bold <<conservative>> insights on the economy, politics, national security, culture, and more.

It quotes California Globe:

> About Us

> California Globe is an independent, professional news website obsessively chronicling everything political throughout the state of California. We are <<pro-growth and pro-business>>, non-partisan and objective; we report what we see and hear without fear or favor.

"pro-growth and pro-business" (dogwhistle for conservative), I'm sure their reporting is super unbiased, their sources are obviously not incentivized to distort facts.

Oh, wait:

> Explained Altaf Chaus, who owns and operates three Burger King franchise restaurants in San Jose

Ah, yes, the capitalist is complaining.

> By June 2024, <<Stanford University>> found that over 10,000 fast food jobs were already lost.

> The "Stanford University" study behind that 10,000-jobs figure is an article titled "California Loses Nearly 10,000 Fast-Food Jobs After $20 Minimum Wage Signed Last Fall," written by economist Lee Ohanian and published April 24, 2024 by the <<Hoover Institution>>. The Hoover Institution is a think tank located on Stanford's campus and affiliated with the university, which is almost certainly why outlets describe it as a "Stanford University" finding. (Hoover itself notes that opinions on its site don't necessarily reflect the views of the Hoover Institution or Stanford University.)

> <<Here's the catch: the article has been retracted.>> According to the notice now on the page, the author cited data reported by the Wall Street Journal and interpreted those data as being seasonally adjusted; following publication, those data were identified as not being seasonally adjusted, so the article was retracted to avoid misinformation. The seasonal-adjustment issue matters a lot here, because fast-food employment naturally fluctuates with the seasons, so unadjusted month-to-month numbers can show "losses" that are really just normal seasonal patterns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution

> It is widely described as <<conservative>>, although its directors have contested the idea that it is partisan.

You need a more balanced news diet.