[baddox]

Drivers' salaries can only go as low as drivers are willing to be paid to drive. That's no different than literally any commercial interaction. You could always volunteer to pay more, and the other party would probably be appreciative.

Of course, in this case I think it's pretty clear that Lyft and Uber are subsidizing the rides and paying drivers much more than the cost of the ride. If wealthy investors want to pay people to drive me around, I'm game.

[stouset]

This only holds so long as you believe the drivers are rational actors, and account for all of their own costs. From talking to drivers I've ridden with, most have literally no idea how much their driving is depreciating the car, nor do they factor in things like an increased maintenance schedule into their calculations.

I suspect Uber and Lyft would continue to experience their current glut of drivers, even if the entire model boiled down to nothing more than drivers effectively trading the equity of their vehicles for cash at a terrible exchange rate.

[baddox]

I prefer the assumption that people tend to be rational actors who account for their own costs than the assumption that there is some group of people able to rationally prescribe actions and account for the costs of other people they have never met.

[geofft]

What does meeting people have to do with anything?

It's pretty straightforward to figure out what the costs are of an UberX or Lyft driver, knowing their car model and year and also knowing how much they drive. These are facts, and they can be calculated once and held to public scrutiny and review. There's no need for everyone to redo that calculation.

Now that we have something that can be calculated, we can move forward based on reason, without having to decide which of two assumptions we prefer.