erictm
Ricky Sunnyvale
erictm

Exactly, JCO67Z33 - it’s a side-hustle at best. Trying to Uber as a full time job is a shitty way to live. Was never meant to be a full time job. As a side-hustle, it’s great beer-and-guitars money. But it’s far to unpredictable and variable to try and cover rent and food on.

most uber drivers are doing exactly that - by driving new cars, it’s exactly converting depreciation into cash. Smart uber drivers are driving the oldest cheapest car they can qualify on that still gets decent pax ratings and is reliable/cheap enough to maintain that it will survive. I made $32K in uber revenue (part

Me, every single time I try a Jaguar (again)...

i’ll suggest you look at this like how the beverage industry exploded in the last decade, or organics, or gluten free, or whatever....the objective was never to build a competitor to Coca-Cola and Pepsico - the objective was to build something big enough to be an attractive acquisition target with a massive cashout.

people said the same things about the taxi industry....until some dudes said ‘screw that’ and made a mint. Focus on the solution - or keep whining about the problem. Likely, nobody outside of the people actually living with disabled people will understand the design solution or truly give a crap about solving it if

Uber/Lyft only work because they are utilizing assets (cars) that are otherwise sitting idle, which are owned by the Drivers. If all or many of the people who own wheelchair capable vehicles were to become Uber/Lyft drivers, there would be much more access to the people who need that service. No private individual

hooray for economics! nice post

exactly, gearbox. The demand curve for this service is not nearly as price elastic as it’s made out to be. It could double in price and ridership wouldn’t fall much.

and as a Driver, I’m taking all that VC slush I can get - literally the only way a ‘regular guy’ gets a slice of that pie, and I’m eating...

Riders are consumers. They behave as such. Consumers seek out ‘consumer surplus’ in their buying decisions. Consumer Surplus has components of ease of use, price, etc that influence the buying decision. For all the kumbayah and snowflake musings about equality and fair wages, and racial bias and the like, the true

Allana is just a terrible writer, that’s all. Too bad she’s the only one assigned to this topic.

the failure of government is the problem, not the addition of a free market service - go build a better mousetrap - get the VC’s to fund you, and build it. This is America....you can do that.

geez, Cake....ok, I’ll play along a bit.

“...Regulation does NOTHING to influence demand positively - it can only reduce demand. Simple Econ 101 stuff kids.

you’re not wrong, axiomatic - the powers that be pushed electric, and so we have EV’s leading the way today - this is where government leading infrastructure becomes important (think Interstate Highway System). Electric already existed, was easily adapted, and was the path of least resistance. Nevermind the

Source for this claim, or are you parroting the old falsehood constructed around NiMH batteries (not Li-ion) that claimed Hummers were more environmental than Prii?

It wasn’t always a pyramid scam, but it sure is for the most part these days.

Uber/Lyft is a terrible way to try and make a living - but it’s one hell of a profitable side-hustle. Rideshare was never designed to be a ‘job’, and shoving a square peg into a round hole has never worked out well in any industry :)

almost nothing you said there is true, Cake - virtually any 4 door vehicle under 10 years old qualifies (in most cities - some even allow older cars than that), there are no limits on working for competitors (I, and most of us, work multiple platforms simultaneously), and a metrics based incentive program (certain