How is it a scam? It gave me a ride to the airport for $26 bucks. I took a cab once and it cost over $50 bucks. My need some tweaks here and therem but overall its a great service for customers
The missing $24 were health insurance, car insurance, pension payments for the driver etc. All not being paid.
Uber is no ride share service, it is a test project to figure out if modern society will accept a larger lower income working class without any social security, and that is what all investment firms bet on.
> The missing $24 were health insurance, car insurance, pension payments for the driver etc.
Car insurance, maybe; car companies don't pay health insurance or pensions either for their drivers, who are also characterized as contractors rather than employees.
That depends on the country. In Europe transportation is regulated, and fees are higher and also arrive at the drivers, since they actually have pensions etc.
Meaning Uber eliminates basically the most prominent achievement of the working class with its service. Turning everyone into an independent contractor eliminates social security. Swiftly.
The driver uses that money to pay for his own health insurance and retirement. Contrary to your post, Uber provided me with commercial vehicle insurance when I was driving for them.
That is the problem here. Employed work means sharing the duties of social security between company and employee. Uber moves their payments on your shoulders.
And that point is exactly what makes up Ubers' valuation. Ignoring the questionable ethics of that this should be reconsidered though because comparing to the technical value of their service they are requiring way too many engineers to deliver their services, which is a considerable risk if they grow any further.
There is no duty for a company to provide social security for contractors. Same way as an Uber contractor has no responsibility to drive a certain amount of time or at certain hours.
Additionally taxis are regulated so as to create a reasonably universally publicly accessible transportation system. That is that you can call a cab and it will pick you up and you will have an understanding of the price you will pay.
In an Uber/Lyft ride hailing system cabs can only be hailed via an app, and will only accept the most profitable rides. Surge pricing may also make the ride only affordable to the relatively wealthy. In such a system, low income persons in relatively remote areas lose transportation options.
Part of the extra price of cabs is the price of creating a transportation system that is accessible to everyone, not just the most wealthy.
Uber and Lyft actually succeeded in creating an accessible system that everyone could afford. You have it all backwards. The common person can actually afford Uber, not cabs.
A button that calls you an Uber is as easy to build as a button that calls the taxi dispatcher for you, but I don’t think the elderly appreciate the taxi experience of demanding cash because they’re pretending the card reader broke.
(You can already get a voice assistant to book a ride for you too.)
Ask your grandma etc if they would use that. Anyone above 50 these days will probably not give you a nice answer to having to use smartphones or voice assistants that usually understand less than a newborn child.
As someone around that age get off your virtue signaling high horse. People in their fifties today helped build most of the tech you use every day, but even if they hadn’t your implicit ageism levied in service of an accessibility rant is a level of irony that just can’t be ignored.
Lol, where I live, the idea of finding any cab, even if you knew the cab company and called them, was laughable. Uber at least will come, and will give you an estimate beforehand.
The fear that I've heard described by politicians in my city is that uber drivers could position themselves in areas where they know from experience they will be most profitable (eg. dense downtown core) while avoiding areas that over time are not as profitable (eg. sparse outer areas). This fact, coupled with the fact that they are not obligated to travel to a certain area to receive a fare, means that certain areas could receive less reliable service as drivers chase high profit areas and are able to ignore others.
Your politicians are lying to you because they are paid off by the taxi monopoly. Service everywhere increases because of Uber and Lyft. The behavior you describe is exactly what taxis do. If you look at how things improved in all cities, service improved by orders of magnitude. In NYC, service to all 5 boroughs improved dramatically because of Uber and Lyft, because taxis would only service manhattan.
Before you follow blindly what your politicians are telling you, do some research and educate yourself first. Don’t rely on headlines and word of mouth.
Uber drivers aren't obligated to accept hail requests.
As Uber gains dominance over regulated taxis (which are obligated to serve everyone), the level of accessibility to transportation in certain generally unprofitable areas may decrease.
