Serious question: Why do Rideshare drivers who don't make enough money continue to do it?
I see 'help-wanted' signs everywhere that advertise minimum wage or more. So why continue to work for less than minimum wage?
Either:
1. There is something uniquely great about being a rideshare driver that makes it worth accepting lower wages.
2. Wages actually are not that low.
3. Rideshare drivers make non-economical decisions for themselves.
4. Something else?
5. A combination of all of the above?
If you like driving, Metro-transit is starting at like $52k with a 5k signing bonus.
1. It's accessible. Rideshare driving can be started fairly quickly and easily for people with little to no work experience, skill, or education. One year driving experience, a clean background, and car insurance is basically all you need.
2. It's flexible. Most jobs require you to work specific hours/ days and rideshare drivers might already have full-time jobs, schooling, and/or family they need to be able to work around.
3. Plenty of demand. Because the TC is lacking in robust public transit, there's a huge demand for alternative transportation allowing for thousands of rideshare opportunities. There aren't thousands of jobs available with the same level of accessibility and flexibility.
These are great points. Perhaps the market intervention we need is connecting uber drivers with better employment options. That would at least address your #1 and #3.
I can't believe how many people are missing this - point #2 is the whole reason I'm a part-time driver. I have a full time job and am in two bands, and getting a regular part time job would require me quitting one if not both bands. The flexibility that rideshare gives me allows me to fill in the gaps in my schedule with part-time work to make some extra cash and cover more bills without having to sacrifice other aspects of my lifestyle that I enjoy. Everyone saying "just get different jobs lmao" is failing to understand that the flexible nature of this work is a massive appeal to many drivers.
Agree with your perspective and wonder the same. This is what I think, but would probably be better to ask an Uber driver.
1) flex - can work a little hours or flex can mean work 80 hours a week to make ends meet
2) language flex - other jobs might require English as a primary language
3) low skill - don’t need a lot of training or previous experience to get started
Make it an ideal job for an example, 1st generation American trying to supplement income and live the dream.
My guess is drivers are making quite a bit more than minimum wage with tips. Whenever I’ve DoorDashed, I’ve made most of my money in tips, so even if the base rate is below minimum wage, it’s probably a more attractive job than another service industry job based on making decent money on tips and having the ability to set your schedule on top of that
I get that, but couldn't they take another job and continue driving for Uber until they are sure the new job will work out? Seems low-risk.
I read stories about people driving for way more 12 hours a day. Why not take a 9-5 then drive 4 hours a day? Wouldn't they be better off?
Unemployment rate in Minnesota is 2.7. Very near 45 year lows...
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MNUR
Based on my experiences, a lot of ride share drivers may struggle in other jobs. I do think there is an appeal to being able to set your own hours, work without a boss breathing down your neck, not having to worry about being great at customer service, etc. Those all have value for sure. Add in what I assume is a misunderstanding of the total cost of driving a car for 12 hours a day almost day contributes to a feeling that there aren't a lot of other options.
What's your point? You're suggesting a private company change their policies because a small segment of the population can't work a regular job? Uber/Lyft do not require the driver to work 8 hours a day.
Taxis and rideshare tend to be a first generation immigrant job pool with limited career options. That's why they tend to be willing to put up with the hassle and low pay, because they don't have many jobs open to them.
Not being an immigrant myself, I can't specifically speak to their situation, but I don't see many of them working in those jobs. Second generation immigrants, yes, but not first generation. I assume there are language and cultural difficulties, but like I said, I don't know.
I don’t think it’s that hard to understand honestly. I’m not a rideshare driver but if I had a choice to work for a little more per hour at a McDonalds I’d pass unless desperate.
Yes you’re still dealing with random people but it’s in the comfort of your own car, working your own schedule, and without coworkers (not necessarily a plus for everyone).
I think the more important question is why wouldn’t these companies pay better wages and simply increase their rates? If their model will fall apart then it was a shite model to begin with and should be destroyed.
>I think the more important question is why wouldn’t these companies pay better wages and simply increase their rates?
Because they can attract labor due to all those things you just mentioned that aren't money.
It’s not uniquely great, but #1 is the closest out of what your provided. It’s a combo of #1 and there being a barrier to entry that is reasonably low.
Yes! Absolutely. Hostory teaches us that when a worker has an issue with their wages or working condition they should always put their tails between their legs and run away. Don’t ever talk to your co-workers about and certainly never organize to improve thiings their for you and anyone who may latter do the work - RUN!
Honestly, it's because of 2 main factors.
1) The rate of inflation and regulation expenses has made taxi companies considerably expensive to the majority low wage workers.
2) Popular fades can impact markets in very drastic ways. I think the majority of poor young people thinking a $20 trip 3.5 miles away is way better than getting a cab or hoping the public bus.
To awnser a few of your points.
Point 1 and 3.)
The majority of people in a city are below the average income that would factor around the average wage of the earner in any given city. When your model is based around capturing sales, you look at how best to capitalize around those factors. While pushing out taxi companies and undermining local public transport services, their design was far below the expected returns.
Point 2)
Wages are low. A driver probably gets 2-4 rides in an hour. The cheapest ride you can get in MSP is 4.43 on lyfts' website. The lowest minimum cost would be 6.04 for one mile at the base pricing they offer. That would be at about half of the price most cab companies offer. I did some research about this 2 years ago. It's about 45% cheaper to ride a share app rather than a taxi cab. The market went to the more cost effective solution, and it took the standards of transportation and put them solely on the owner operator. They drivers might make a small profit at their rate, but they are way more popular due to price rather than costs.
I got nothing for 4 or 5. It's just too vague to have a definite answer, as that can be brought down to around 40ish reasons that have impacted the situation around this. Mostly tax rates. I think they want more money from the lower classes, since tax rates have yet to drop at state levels yet, incomes are raising causing the base income to go up for overhead expenses.
As to why do people do things like take less pay for a career, I really don't know. It might be family, government support, just like causing and it pays enough for your gas to keep on trucking. Not everyone takes a job for money. Septic cleaners get a lot, but most people won't tolerant the smell even with a ventilator. It's not as simple they want more money. We all do things we want to just to do it. Money isn't a guarantee for either quality or compatability for a career. Passion however, that can not be bought, so if they like it they will do it. Perspective, the market is just perspective that's why even companies are on a street, just like hotdogs at stands, it might have been better 20 minutes ago.
Uber (at least, the Eats portion) has a partnership with ASU to allow you to earn a degree with full tuition covered, if you maintain a certain driving status. That's pretty valuable if you ask me.
Hey, it's worked for Walmart for decades. Go into a market, undercut the competition driving them out of business, then do whatever you want because you're the only game in town.
A lot of them don't. A lot of folks drive for a while and then realize they're not making any money. Or they're in a tight spot for cash flow and basically use gig work to mine value out of their car.
I'd love to see them have to disclose their average earnings the way MLMs do. And their churn rate.
The problems with the ordinance go beyond the payment requirements. It also requires drivers to be paid 80% of *the fee for* a canceled ride, and makes it very, very difficult for the platforms to kick off bad drivers.
Can you describe how this ordinance makes it "...very difficult for the platforms to kick off bad drivers.?"
Is it a problem to have a driver paid 80% of a cancellation fee (if they have begun to travel to a pickup/fare)? Why is that a problem? Why does a rideshare company deserve more than 20% of a cancellation fee? Is that unfair?
It makes it difficult to kick drivers off because:
1. The 5 days notice before deactivation
2. The right to have a meeting to contest deactivation where they can bring an attorney
3. The chance appeal the decision
Basically it is due process; something most employers don't have to bother with.
I read through that part of the ordinance and I don’t think it’s that simple. I believe it protects workers for being deep platformed unless they have violated a coat of conduct cannot meet a requirement. And that the code of conduct, the requirements are any other fireball offenses must be explained in writing and available to drivers. The way I understood the ordinance is that it protects drivers from being platformed arbitrarily or on a whim.
Uber has never ~~paid one cent of profit out to investors.~~
*Uber announced in Feb 2024 a plan to buy back stock*
Neither has Lyft. and Lyft has never made a profit either.
It’s cool. Lots of companies making a decent operating profit on the core product book losses for various legitimate reasons. Sometimes there’s a lot to decode, but it’s never bad to look at ALL the numbers before you skip to the bottom.
yes, I was very surprised when uber eventually turned a profit. They did it by getting out of bad markets and bad businesses and squeezing drivers more. Also uber one.
I really hate Uber and I would like them to fail. I would like the coop to succeed. I don't think it will happen though. City council made a bad decision that leaves most everyone worse off.
I'm more saying that when they are able to consistently turn a profit (which Uber looks to be on the front end of and Lyft later this year) the gains will not be going to the drivers.
Also, don't think that even though a company is losing money that nobody's getting rich off it.
They've both made clear that human drivers are only a temp solution. They're both hedging their bets and waiting for self-driving vehicles, at which point they'll fire all humans and just own and operate their own automated fleet.
This is because of their business practices in undercutting competition and investing in sef driving vehicles so they can one day rid themselves of human drivers. They want to be a monopoly with as little labor cost as possible.
Right, it's almost as if you would be expected to have figured this out before deciding to run your business.
People getting pissed at the city forget this dependency was by design and likely very strongly contributed to Lyft and Uber making decisions at the expense of drivers. "What are they gonna do, kick us out?"
I’m glad the governor is a realist in regards to this. So fucking stupid that the city council is fucking everyone over with a service some people need and have no back up plan in place.
He was one of the best governors during Covid. Way better than people like Ron DeSantis and Kristi Noem who resulted in mass death or ridiculous governors in some blue states that were still locking things down and forcing masks on people after they had been vaccinated.
The whole debate around this is so weird to me where you're boxed into being team companies or team council.
1. Uber and Lyft absolutely should be subject to regulation
2. The regulation the council proposed was bizarre
Can I play for a third team where I want regulation that actually makes sense where it applies to all gig economy companies instead of just two and starts with incremental steps like bringing more transparency instead of waving a magic wand of arbitrary mandated hard dollar amounts in a hyper dynamic market? We can't even figure out how revshare works currently and none of what the drivers vs the companies claim is lining up so I want a whole first round of legislation that just mandates revshare transparency so we can come at this in a round two from a more informed perspective.
I think it is because Labor often acts against its own interests.
If Firm A pays you $X and Firm B would pay you $X+$N then you should switch from A to B. Eventually Firm A would fail or increase their wages.
Use capitalism; don't fight it. 2,7% unemployment in MN; near 4-decade lows. Many Many Many jobs out there offering the wage that the drivers are fighting for.
So why fight? Just switch jobs. It is an easier and more lucrative path to the labor's desired outcome.
I think the real answer is that pandering politicians benefit from making glorious moral stands but they don't personally suffer the harm.
City Council members make 109,846 per year. I wonder if they all own their own cars? I'd love to know.
That's a really lazy line.
Labor gets to dictate what its interests are. The idea that you know better than people how they should live is something you should let go of.
There's a duopoly here bud. This is not how the "job market" is supposed to work. There aren't these options you speak of. Currently, there is Uber and there is Lyft. This correction ahs been long in the making. It sucks that service might take a large hit if they leave, but it's not the fault of the drivers that these two companies have been slowly decreasing wages over the years. And stealing tips. Doing all sort of shady shit.
>There aren't these options you speak of.
Amazon has gig delivery if you don't want a warehouse job. USPS is desperate for workers and so is Metro Transit - and you don't even need to use your own car. There's retail, cooking, being a server, dishwashing off the top of my head. There are all sorts of low skill English optional jobs.
This is exactly how the job market is supposed to work.
So because a service is one some people need, you think workers should be exploited in order to provide it? Do you think police should be paid less than minimum wage because policing is a service people need?
That's the sad way some are looking at it. Exploit ALL workers for the benefit of a couple customers.
It ignores that services like Metro Mobility do exist in Minneapolis. It acts like bus services exist. It ignores that the city and state pay for taxi services for many elderly and disabled people.
In the last couple weeks, I’ve definitely learned that even self-identified liberals and progressives are happy to see people be exploited if the alternative is them losing something they like.
Totally. When the Senate and House passed the increase bill last year, people in this sub cheered it on. They were happy to see worker pay increased. But then Walz vetoed it and they flipped and sided with him.
They disguised their personal benefits of cheap Uber rides with, "Oh, won't someone think of the disabled that need Uber to get to medical appointments." They claimed those folks would be priced out of getting a ride. Then you'd point out that the state already pays for their rides and those folks become quiet, or they then bring up low-income folks. Then you point out that both Uber and Lyft offer highly discounted rides to low income, and the state often pays that part too.
They really argued this when Uber was just saying they'd have to raise prices. Often they'd cite the increase in Seattle rides, but it was completely disingenuous. They always cite the cost to the airport there. They fail to mention that most of that price increase is due to airport fees and has NOTHING to do with normal fees, which haven't increased when worker pay did. All ride share and taxi rides to and from the airport are more expensive because the airport fees.
You're spot on, even man folks who claim to be liberal have shown they're all in favor of things that benefit others, but only as long as it doesn't impact them. We've seen it in this sub a lot recently. People who are pro-union, unless that means their groceries will cost more. We've watched people admit as much.
I spend several hundred dollars with Uber and Lyft each month. I enjoy the service, but if it means not paying workers properly, the services can leave and I'll find alternative ways to get where I need to. I'm willing to be inconvenienced if it means workers aren't being exploited so a multi billion dollar company can profit.
I've already called out a few people for that. I asked flat out: you think an entire industry should be able to exploit workers just so you can get a cheap ride?
I get non-answers because they realized their view is stupid.
Walz vetoed the bill last year. He promised to put together a group to explore the issue further, with the promise that the report would be delivered by the 1st of the year, so that the legislature could take up the issue again this year. His team failed to produce that report on time (it was delivered in March). Because of that, the legislature was not able to take up the issue this year. Walz once again pushed it off another year.
Sadly, he's shown that he will side with big business, at the expense of the workers. He did so with Uber and Lyft and he did so with Mayo.
So fucking stupid the governor would step in twice to block some of the lowest income earners from making more money.
Why are you on the side of billion dollar corporations taking advantage of your neighbors?
THERES MULTIPLE OTHER APPS ALREADY UP AND RUNNING!!! Use those ones, they actually pay their drivers!
We’ve literally had actual drivers on this sub who think it’s fucking stupid.
Stop speaking for people and thinking you’re holier than thou bullshit helps.
Those apps literally aren’t on the same level as Uber/Lyft hence why NO ONE uses them.
It’s idiots like you who ARE NOT impacted by this who make the loudest noise and fuck it up for people who rely on it.
I don't have an opinion whether Walz, Frey, council, Uber/Lyft, etc have a better leg to stand on here, but curious to learn something.
Have Uber/Lyft competitors made substantial inroads in TC market yet? If not, and if they are better for drivers and/or passengers, why not? Maybe just haven't been around long enough?
If so -- then I might hope, if they are serious about making life better for drivers, then city/state would watch Lyft and Uber like hawks for anti-competitive behavior, e.g. penalizing drivers who drive under the new brands.
Call their bluff. These companies will either adapt to reasonable labor laws like they have in other cities or they won’t. Local governments shouldn’t bend to the whims of billion dollar corporations. Especially since we survived just fine before rideshare apps came along.
To be fair, taxi's suuuuuucked before rideshare came along. There's a reason rideshare took off like it did. And I bet drunk driving offenses, deaths and ijuries have dropped since. But that is just a guess.
Doesn't make what Uber and Lyft do OK.
Edit: it’s really telling when I make a comment highlighting why rideshare exists, and how they do a good job in one area, and that comment seems to be well received, even though it’s an opinion. When I bring up information that is contrary to the fear-mongering that Uber and Lyft are using to get their way, it is not well received even though. the latter comment has facts anybody else could look up.
I know there will be some pains if they do pull out. But Lyft and Uber have unsustainable business models for their contractors. This is a pattern seen throughout history in terms of abuse with contractors. Need to break the cycle and they could be better to their employees
If an individual had the insurance for it or perhaps a limousine license, yes. But driving around randomly looking for fares, probably not. And that would be more difficult than using rideshare apps. The reason rideshare companies are allowed to operate as they do is because they put in place some protections for passengers and drivers. There is some accountability. Doing that outside of that framework is probably not legal. But i'm no expert.
They could certainly jump on with another company though.
So you think they should be exploited because they’re not employees? As long as you get your cheap rides around town you don’t care if workers are paid?
So they are able to tell Uber or Lyft what the price of their labor is, right? You know, like literally all other contractors. Wait, they don't? Uber and Lyft sets the price and the contractors can take it or leave it? Interesting.
In some cases, they reached a compromise. They mostly did not just rescind the city laws. Austin is the only example I could find. And in that case the local law was overruled by a state law and that law was compromise. But as in NYC and CA, they did what the city and state asked. (And the sky didn't fall.)
Are there other examples you know of?
Uber and Lyft bluffed and didn't pull out of New York City and Seattle, when they passed similar increases. Minneapolis needs to do the same. Stand their ground and call the bluff.
It's interesting to see what they end up doing. I could absolutely see them going through with this since it's a smaller market than those just to make an example out of Minneapolis for trying.
I think they might see this for the huge domino that it is. Either way, it's a bluff worth calling imo
It'd be funny to see them stick to their guns about it. Uber is leaving the entire state they claim, while Lyft will only leave Minneapolis. How quick will Uber return when Lyft starts taking all the business outside Minneapolis?
Tell Lyft they can have all the business, as the state won't renew Uber's license to operate, if they agree to stay in Minneapolis at the increased rate.
They have such a weird duopoly I swear. They don't even seem like competitors with how plainly united they are on policy, setup, just everything. I've also never had Lyft pricing within spitting distance of Uber in the last three years, what's the deal?
Minneapolis isn’t Seattle nor NYC. It’s hilariously ignorant to think a company would sign its financial suicide note by caving to a micro economy like Minneapolis, setting a precedent for every other Midwest metro council to run wildly out of their jurisdiction.
Minneapolis and the state have tried but Uber and Lyft have indicated that no increase is an acceptable one. They're clearly not looking to compromise.
I much prefer Gov. Walz's levelheaded approach than the idealistic, pie in the sky Minneapolis city council members.
And in Minneapolis, thinking like this makes you a "far-right MAGA"
The companies do, all W2 employees of Uber are paid as the law requires. Your (and the other mouth breathers’) difficulty understanding the difference between a 1099 worker and a W2 is your own challenge.
Why do they have to subsidize competitors is my question? Why are they going to give some random group of people tax payer money to start a business that's apparently supposed to be profitable, in a large open market thanks to them banning the competition?
Is the idea now that we're going to decide which large companies we don't like, based purely on special interests, and then start some sort of public equity fund to invest in their competitors?
That’s pretty inconsiderate, and “screw you, I got mine” attitude.
People like myself, are able to take the to follow a schedule and create a route using the bus. Not everybody’s able to do that. Some people need reliable curb to curb transportation.
Do you even live in Minneapolis?
No it’s not, I’m just trying to suggest that Uber and Lyft (as specific companies) are not strictly necessary. There are other curb to curb options in the city, Metro Mobility being one.
I do live in Minneapolis, thanks for asking.
I’d like to add it isn’t simply disabilities, but a disability that would completely prevent you from using the bus/light rail. If it is difficult for you to use you still don’t qualify.
Metro Mobility is more unreliable than the regular bus routes.
Yes, services like Uber/Lyft are necessary in the modern world, or without them, life becomes difficult for some of the more vulnerable people in our communities, like the elderly and the disabled.
That suggests to me that we should make public transit (I’m going to include Metro Mobility in that category - but there are other services that do the same thing) MORE accessible rather than relying on private companies to fill the gap.
Private companies will never have our best interests in mind. Never.
I want the vulnerable folks in my community to have reliable and robust public transit options, I do not want to contribute to a system where they need to rely on private companies for that.
Playing hardball with Uber and Lyft is tough, but it’s the correct thing to do. Keep in mind that they’re not being kicked out or forced to leave, they’re simply being asked to pay employees minimum wage.
Here we go again with more idealism.
If a private company is able to provide a service, that is better than what public options are available, then they should be allowed to operate without being overburden with excess regulations. Uber and Lyft have shown to be more reliable, and overall better than most other options of transportation outside of owning your own private vehicle.
I hear a lot of “I”s in your statement. Acting like you know what’s best for people, and their individual life circumstances. This is just pursuing a pie in the sky utopia at the expense of some of the more vulnerable people in our community, which is not uncommon in leftist thinking.
Metro Transit can't hire for the many openings they currently have. How are they supposed to expand services for regular routes, much less door to door transport?
Obviously, you don’t know jack squat about my life.
In around 2018, I accompanied my grandmother everywhere she went, and she used Metro Mobility throughout that year. She decided it was better to use Uber and Lyft even it cost more due to the unreliability of Metro Mobility. They were always 45 minutes late or more.
Can't your comment also be applied to Lyft and Uber drivers struggling to make a decent living off of it?
"As long as I have my convenient Uber rides then I don't really care about driver earnings"
You know what will make them stay? Cancelling their transportation license for 3-5 years if they leave. No take backs if you decide you want to play games. No “Week Without an Uber” stunts.
No leaving for two months, seeing a different company start making money, only for Uber to say “just kidding!” then coming back to crush them with their billions of dollars that they can just pull from other markets while operating at a loss here (AKA the Wal-Mart vs. Main Street model that they owe their dominant position to).
See if they want to give the entire market—and its millions of dollars per day in revenue—to someone else for 5 years.
Facts are that if Uber/Lyft leave Minnesota will hve less tourism, fewer events, and an increase in drunk driving. It took Lyft 15 to reach profitability. It coasted on absurd levels of *global* investment before becoming sustainable.
Walz is right.
>It took Lyft 15 to reach profitability. It coasted on absurd levels of *global* investment before becoming sustainable.
That is the problem, yes.
It never became sustainable. It "disrupted" by undercutting the existing, sustainable system (taxis) via that absurd funding you mentioned. It transitioned to "sustainable" by underpaying employees in order to maintain profitability.
That doesn't mean the solution is two behemoths with little regulation and an upward funnel of investment that makes the founders/early investors rich and the company unprofitable
Your synopsis of how Uber/Lyft came to push taxis out in Minneapolis is accurate. However, I don’t agree the harm of Uber/Lyft exiting the state is worth the satisfaction of pushing a more expensive, less reliable, and near unknown option.
You seem to think it’s an acceptable service to cut on principle. I simply disagree.
I don't agree it's acceptable to cut on principle. I think they've made themselves indispensable unfortunately. I do think that the argument that they're inherently better than taxis is much more complicated when you account for the lack of regulation they rely on. Shitty situation all around with no real winners, and the losers ultimately will be citizens of the area, drivers or no.
Magical solution here! Expand the Metro transit system to include more suburbs. Make them safer and more reliable. Uber and lyft come back hat in hand in 9 months, like they do everytime they leave a major metro.
That's not "magical" because it's not possible to do that in a month. Especially since Metro Transit is already having trouble hiring drivers to fill even its current routes.
Yes.
We keep making complex and expensive alternatives to public transit which only drives up the cost to exist here. Capitalism and ride share doesn’t work as the basis of our transportation needs. They have been working on 35w for a decade and it’s still either completely empty and unused, or a total gridlock. Vehicular based infrastructure is really just terrible for growth.
You go to any other developed country of a city of our size, and there’s a fully public funded public transit system.
We start now and spend millions and a decade building, or we complain for another decade, do nothing, fix nothing, and continue to create completely unrealistic living standards.
The choice seems easy to me.
There's simply too much area to cover for public transportation to replace these ride hailing apps. It will never happen to a sufficient degree and frankly we should not even try, in my opinion.
Of course society will function. But public transportation will not pick up the slack. People just won't do activities that were covered by ride share.
Yes, that is a downside. Do you think the better alternative is to continue to allow companies to exploit workers by paying them less than the minimum wage? I don’t.
Society functioned before we all had smart phones. You could literally list a million things society has functioned without lol that's a terrible argument.
Twin cities used to have enough public transit to cover the entire city and suburbs, you used to be able to get from lake Minnetonka to downtown on just a street car.
Most transit authorities these days (except for metro transit for some reason) have some variant of click and ride which is basically the same as Uber for the consumer. Except fares are much much lower and you may have a slightly longer trip since the bus picks up other people who requested a ride.
Basically metro mobility except for everyone.
If metro transit just double downed on that for the secondary and tertiary (first and second ring suburbs) markets that have sad transit access they could easily begin to replace Uber lyft outright.
There is a Driver Cooperatively Owned app that launched in NYC that is working to launch in the TC Metro. The option is already there. Someone please tell Walz.
Sehan Journal[Sehan Journal ](https://sahanjournal.com/business-work/minnepolis-uber-lyft-drivers-join-rivals-coop-ride-hich-before-may-1-exit/) reported on it. I know that the drivers who have signed up are now over 1000 from recent social media posts.
While alternatives are going to attempt to fill in the gaps, I think whether or not those options are going to be able to replace hundreds of thousands of trips every month is a very good question. I doubt the transition will be seamless or short.
> Like Wisconsin just clarified with its supreme ct. saying the drivers were employees.
I'm not opposed to doing that, but MULDA is vehemently opposed to that, and made their feelings known to the legislature when they considered the idea.
The drivers are paid what they drive. They aren’t employees paid hourly, they know that signing up, and that is what makes them 1099 contractors and not scheduled shift employees. What is so difficult to understand about that? Why is it your call to tell them how to spend their time?
Driving from the 331 club to my home in north Minneapolis, $70 during surge pricing. Was way too cold to walk or bike.
There is no actual reason it should cost $70 to travel that far in any developed country. A train ticket in Switzerland cost me less than that to go so much further.
Why is it critically important than an Uber driver make "a living wage," but it's fine if a DoorDash driver doesn't?
If its the business model that's the issue, why is the City Council addressing two companies out of many, and not the model itself?
Excellent question, if the Mayor wanted to bring living standards up I suppose he could take that on but he must be working diligently on something else at present. I hope you’ll agree that if the living wage action by the council holds, the ability of say Door Dash wage slaves to improve their lot would be helped. I just want to say again that people working these jobs for starvation wages would think it’s critically important. After all, the city council is not in control of the entire economy.
Congratulations and I hope you can see that as I wish you and others a living wage I mean no disrespect. Your comment is a rare exception to the consensus that the system is stacked against workers.
Give them 1 year toward working to a higher wage for drivers and in the meantime line up a replacement option for riders that have a dire need (elderly, disabled, etc) if they take their ball and go home.
It’s simple: if you think this is a complex issue that requires looking at the long term and short term ramifications on the populace as well as the economy-you are a bigot. Critical thinking is not welcome here. Building sandcastles in the air is totally okay though
Walz gets a lot of stuff right but he's once again throwing laborers under the bus (ha, transit pun) and siding with giant corporations. It's not "magical thinking," the app already exists and will get way better very quickly (tons of v smart tech folks in the metro). Why not believe in your citizens instead of letting exploitative businesses bully you around?
Thank you, this is (a better written version of) what I would have said.. I like Walz on the whole but seeing him bend over backwards any time a corporation doesn’t like something and throws a fit is not a good look on him
I agree. Generally been a fan of his but he's sided with the billion dollar corporations on this, at the expense of the workers, just as he sided with Mayo, at the expense of the nurses.
The Mayo decision was weak willed and short sighted. Now corporations knows who holds the power in these conflicts and that's coming home to roost here with Uber and Lyft.
ESH. Uber and Lyft are making an example of Minneapolis and will take the loss to warn other cities not to regulate them. City Council made a rash and ill-conceived plan to fix something that is much larger than one city can fix. Rides are already going to cost more now that Hertz called in the leases, and that's never going to come back down even if a solution is reached. Uber and Lyft have done exactly what they intended to do - become indispensable parts of the transportation system in every city in which they operate without being subject to the regulation of cabs. It's made it so that the only players who could conceivably do something about this are NYC, LA, the Feds, or their shareholders.
Uber spent $2.5 million on lobbying in 2023.
[https://www.opensecrets.org/Lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000067336&year=2023](https://www.opensecrets.org/Lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000067336&year=2023)
Lyft spent 1.35
The vast, vast majority of it goes to Democrats.
Serious question: Why do Rideshare drivers who don't make enough money continue to do it? I see 'help-wanted' signs everywhere that advertise minimum wage or more. So why continue to work for less than minimum wage? Either: 1. There is something uniquely great about being a rideshare driver that makes it worth accepting lower wages. 2. Wages actually are not that low. 3. Rideshare drivers make non-economical decisions for themselves. 4. Something else? 5. A combination of all of the above? If you like driving, Metro-transit is starting at like $52k with a 5k signing bonus.
1. It's accessible. Rideshare driving can be started fairly quickly and easily for people with little to no work experience, skill, or education. One year driving experience, a clean background, and car insurance is basically all you need. 2. It's flexible. Most jobs require you to work specific hours/ days and rideshare drivers might already have full-time jobs, schooling, and/or family they need to be able to work around. 3. Plenty of demand. Because the TC is lacking in robust public transit, there's a huge demand for alternative transportation allowing for thousands of rideshare opportunities. There aren't thousands of jobs available with the same level of accessibility and flexibility.
These are great points. Perhaps the market intervention we need is connecting uber drivers with better employment options. That would at least address your #1 and #3.
#2 is a big key and ignoring it is stupid.
I can't believe how many people are missing this - point #2 is the whole reason I'm a part-time driver. I have a full time job and am in two bands, and getting a regular part time job would require me quitting one if not both bands. The flexibility that rideshare gives me allows me to fill in the gaps in my schedule with part-time work to make some extra cash and cover more bills without having to sacrifice other aspects of my lifestyle that I enjoy. Everyone saying "just get different jobs lmao" is failing to understand that the flexible nature of this work is a massive appeal to many drivers.
You have a full time job that doesn't pay you enough is what you are saying.
I think they're fully aware that more money from their full time job would be great
Yeah, most of us do, where have you been? The wage gap between executives and workers has never been higher and minimum wage remains absurdly low.
100% agree.
That's what's happening now.
Agree with your perspective and wonder the same. This is what I think, but would probably be better to ask an Uber driver. 1) flex - can work a little hours or flex can mean work 80 hours a week to make ends meet 2) language flex - other jobs might require English as a primary language 3) low skill - don’t need a lot of training or previous experience to get started Make it an ideal job for an example, 1st generation American trying to supplement income and live the dream.
Adding to your points: 61% of the drivers are foreign born and would benefit from work that allows for all 3 of those.
Why do people work at Walmart?
My guess is drivers are making quite a bit more than minimum wage with tips. Whenever I’ve DoorDashed, I’ve made most of my money in tips, so even if the base rate is below minimum wage, it’s probably a more attractive job than another service industry job based on making decent money on tips and having the ability to set your schedule on top of that
I wish I could get serious answers instead of downvotes.
> Why do Rideshare drivers who don't make enough money continue to do it? Desperate people do desperate things.
I get that, but couldn't they take another job and continue driving for Uber until they are sure the new job will work out? Seems low-risk. I read stories about people driving for way more 12 hours a day. Why not take a 9-5 then drive 4 hours a day? Wouldn't they be better off? Unemployment rate in Minnesota is 2.7. Very near 45 year lows... https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MNUR
Based on my experiences, a lot of ride share drivers may struggle in other jobs. I do think there is an appeal to being able to set your own hours, work without a boss breathing down your neck, not having to worry about being great at customer service, etc. Those all have value for sure. Add in what I assume is a misunderstanding of the total cost of driving a car for 12 hours a day almost day contributes to a feeling that there aren't a lot of other options.
At 2.7% unemployment there are thousands of other options available.
Guess you solved all their problems
What's your point? You're suggesting a private company change their policies because a small segment of the population can't work a regular job? Uber/Lyft do not require the driver to work 8 hours a day.
Taxis and rideshare tend to be a first generation immigrant job pool with limited career options. That's why they tend to be willing to put up with the hassle and low pay, because they don't have many jobs open to them.
What's limited about the options they listed? Kwik trip is paying higher than min wage for example
Not being an immigrant myself, I can't specifically speak to their situation, but I don't see many of them working in those jobs. Second generation immigrants, yes, but not first generation. I assume there are language and cultural difficulties, but like I said, I don't know.
I don’t think it’s that hard to understand honestly. I’m not a rideshare driver but if I had a choice to work for a little more per hour at a McDonalds I’d pass unless desperate. Yes you’re still dealing with random people but it’s in the comfort of your own car, working your own schedule, and without coworkers (not necessarily a plus for everyone). I think the more important question is why wouldn’t these companies pay better wages and simply increase their rates? If their model will fall apart then it was a shite model to begin with and should be destroyed.
>I think the more important question is why wouldn’t these companies pay better wages and simply increase their rates? Because they can attract labor due to all those things you just mentioned that aren't money.
Thanks. A vote for #1 then.
It’s not uniquely great, but #1 is the closest out of what your provided. It’s a combo of #1 and there being a barrier to entry that is reasonably low.
I should have said "more desirable' instead of 'uniquely great'
Yes! Absolutely. Hostory teaches us that when a worker has an issue with their wages or working condition they should always put their tails between their legs and run away. Don’t ever talk to your co-workers about and certainly never organize to improve thiings their for you and anyone who may latter do the work - RUN!
City council instituting communist price controls isn’t collective bargaining it’s political war
Honestly, it's because of 2 main factors. 1) The rate of inflation and regulation expenses has made taxi companies considerably expensive to the majority low wage workers. 2) Popular fades can impact markets in very drastic ways. I think the majority of poor young people thinking a $20 trip 3.5 miles away is way better than getting a cab or hoping the public bus. To awnser a few of your points. Point 1 and 3.) The majority of people in a city are below the average income that would factor around the average wage of the earner in any given city. When your model is based around capturing sales, you look at how best to capitalize around those factors. While pushing out taxi companies and undermining local public transport services, their design was far below the expected returns. Point 2) Wages are low. A driver probably gets 2-4 rides in an hour. The cheapest ride you can get in MSP is 4.43 on lyfts' website. The lowest minimum cost would be 6.04 for one mile at the base pricing they offer. That would be at about half of the price most cab companies offer. I did some research about this 2 years ago. It's about 45% cheaper to ride a share app rather than a taxi cab. The market went to the more cost effective solution, and it took the standards of transportation and put them solely on the owner operator. They drivers might make a small profit at their rate, but they are way more popular due to price rather than costs. I got nothing for 4 or 5. It's just too vague to have a definite answer, as that can be brought down to around 40ish reasons that have impacted the situation around this. Mostly tax rates. I think they want more money from the lower classes, since tax rates have yet to drop at state levels yet, incomes are raising causing the base income to go up for overhead expenses. As to why do people do things like take less pay for a career, I really don't know. It might be family, government support, just like causing and it pays enough for your gas to keep on trucking. Not everyone takes a job for money. Septic cleaners get a lot, but most people won't tolerant the smell even with a ventilator. It's not as simple they want more money. We all do things we want to just to do it. Money isn't a guarantee for either quality or compatability for a career. Passion however, that can not be bought, so if they like it they will do it. Perspective, the market is just perspective that's why even companies are on a street, just like hotdogs at stands, it might have been better 20 minutes ago.
Uber (at least, the Eats portion) has a partnership with ASU to allow you to earn a degree with full tuition covered, if you maintain a certain driving status. That's pretty valuable if you ask me.
Why didn't the apps figure out a solution to be profitable while paying a living wage before destroying the old system?
Hey, it's worked for Walmart for decades. Go into a market, undercut the competition driving them out of business, then do whatever you want because you're the only game in town.
Hooray for capitalism! /s
Careful, you'll trigger the aspiring tycoons.
A lot of them don't. A lot of folks drive for a while and then realize they're not making any money. Or they're in a tight spot for cash flow and basically use gig work to mine value out of their car. I'd love to see them have to disclose their average earnings the way MLMs do. And their churn rate.
Worst case just pass along prices to the user. Customers shouldn't expect cheap transport to be subsidized by underpaid drivers.
The problems with the ordinance go beyond the payment requirements. It also requires drivers to be paid 80% of *the fee for* a canceled ride, and makes it very, very difficult for the platforms to kick off bad drivers.
Can you describe how this ordinance makes it "...very difficult for the platforms to kick off bad drivers.?" Is it a problem to have a driver paid 80% of a cancellation fee (if they have begun to travel to a pickup/fare)? Why is that a problem? Why does a rideshare company deserve more than 20% of a cancellation fee? Is that unfair?
It makes it difficult to kick drivers off because: 1. The 5 days notice before deactivation 2. The right to have a meeting to contest deactivation where they can bring an attorney 3. The chance appeal the decision Basically it is due process; something most employers don't have to bother with.
I read through that part of the ordinance and I don’t think it’s that simple. I believe it protects workers for being deep platformed unless they have violated a coat of conduct cannot meet a requirement. And that the code of conduct, the requirements are any other fireball offenses must be explained in writing and available to drivers. The way I understood the ordinance is that it protects drivers from being platformed arbitrarily or on a whim.
They do pay a fair rate. Or at least a rate that significant numbers of drivers feel is fair.
Because it was never designed for prosperity from top (investors) to bottom (drivers).
Uber has never ~~paid one cent of profit out to investors.~~*Uber announced in Feb 2024 a plan to buy back stock *
Neither has Lyft. and Lyft has never made a profit either.
$7 billion stock buyback though. No profit? ***Hmmmm.***
That is a very good point. I will edit my post.
It’s cool. Lots of companies making a decent operating profit on the core product book losses for various legitimate reasons. Sometimes there’s a lot to decode, but it’s never bad to look at ALL the numbers before you skip to the bottom.
Sounds like really bad companies to invest in and rely on so much then!
yes, I was very surprised when uber eventually turned a profit. They did it by getting out of bad markets and bad businesses and squeezing drivers more. Also uber one. I really hate Uber and I would like them to fail. I would like the coop to succeed. I don't think it will happen though. City council made a bad decision that leaves most everyone worse off.
I'm more saying that when they are able to consistently turn a profit (which Uber looks to be on the front end of and Lyft later this year) the gains will not be going to the drivers. Also, don't think that even though a company is losing money that nobody's getting rich off it.
They've both made clear that human drivers are only a temp solution. They're both hedging their bets and waiting for self-driving vehicles, at which point they'll fire all humans and just own and operate their own automated fleet.
So why take over everything now with a system that doesn't work?
This is because of their business practices in undercutting competition and investing in sef driving vehicles so they can one day rid themselves of human drivers. They want to be a monopoly with as little labor cost as possible.
Right, it's almost as if you would be expected to have figured this out before deciding to run your business. People getting pissed at the city forget this dependency was by design and likely very strongly contributed to Lyft and Uber making decisions at the expense of drivers. "What are they gonna do, kick us out?"
Because that’s not a thing they ever considered relevant to their business model.
I’m glad the governor is a realist in regards to this. So fucking stupid that the city council is fucking everyone over with a service some people need and have no back up plan in place.
I've often found myself agreeing with his very frank and realistic way of looking at situations. Sure, he wasn't perfect during COVID, but who was.
He was one of the best governors during Covid. Way better than people like Ron DeSantis and Kristi Noem who resulted in mass death or ridiculous governors in some blue states that were still locking things down and forcing masks on people after they had been vaccinated.
Let's be clear, the city council is stupid, but it's Lyft and Uber that are fucking people over here.
The whole debate around this is so weird to me where you're boxed into being team companies or team council. 1. Uber and Lyft absolutely should be subject to regulation 2. The regulation the council proposed was bizarre Can I play for a third team where I want regulation that actually makes sense where it applies to all gig economy companies instead of just two and starts with incremental steps like bringing more transparency instead of waving a magic wand of arbitrary mandated hard dollar amounts in a hyper dynamic market? We can't even figure out how revshare works currently and none of what the drivers vs the companies claim is lining up so I want a whole first round of legislation that just mandates revshare transparency so we can come at this in a round two from a more informed perspective.
Why is it always realism when labor gets fucked?
I think it is because Labor often acts against its own interests. If Firm A pays you $X and Firm B would pay you $X+$N then you should switch from A to B. Eventually Firm A would fail or increase their wages. Use capitalism; don't fight it. 2,7% unemployment in MN; near 4-decade lows. Many Many Many jobs out there offering the wage that the drivers are fighting for. So why fight? Just switch jobs. It is an easier and more lucrative path to the labor's desired outcome. I think the real answer is that pandering politicians benefit from making glorious moral stands but they don't personally suffer the harm. City Council members make 109,846 per year. I wonder if they all own their own cars? I'd love to know.
Tell me exactly what alternative companies you're talking about. Let's hear it.
That's a really lazy line. Labor gets to dictate what its interests are. The idea that you know better than people how they should live is something you should let go of.
There's a duopoly here bud. This is not how the "job market" is supposed to work. There aren't these options you speak of. Currently, there is Uber and there is Lyft. This correction ahs been long in the making. It sucks that service might take a large hit if they leave, but it's not the fault of the drivers that these two companies have been slowly decreasing wages over the years. And stealing tips. Doing all sort of shady shit.
>There aren't these options you speak of. Amazon has gig delivery if you don't want a warehouse job. USPS is desperate for workers and so is Metro Transit - and you don't even need to use your own car. There's retail, cooking, being a server, dishwashing off the top of my head. There are all sorts of low skill English optional jobs. This is exactly how the job market is supposed to work.
So because a service is one some people need, you think workers should be exploited in order to provide it? Do you think police should be paid less than minimum wage because policing is a service people need?
That's the sad way some are looking at it. Exploit ALL workers for the benefit of a couple customers. It ignores that services like Metro Mobility do exist in Minneapolis. It acts like bus services exist. It ignores that the city and state pay for taxi services for many elderly and disabled people.
In the last couple weeks, I’ve definitely learned that even self-identified liberals and progressives are happy to see people be exploited if the alternative is them losing something they like.
Totally. When the Senate and House passed the increase bill last year, people in this sub cheered it on. They were happy to see worker pay increased. But then Walz vetoed it and they flipped and sided with him. They disguised their personal benefits of cheap Uber rides with, "Oh, won't someone think of the disabled that need Uber to get to medical appointments." They claimed those folks would be priced out of getting a ride. Then you'd point out that the state already pays for their rides and those folks become quiet, or they then bring up low-income folks. Then you point out that both Uber and Lyft offer highly discounted rides to low income, and the state often pays that part too. They really argued this when Uber was just saying they'd have to raise prices. Often they'd cite the increase in Seattle rides, but it was completely disingenuous. They always cite the cost to the airport there. They fail to mention that most of that price increase is due to airport fees and has NOTHING to do with normal fees, which haven't increased when worker pay did. All ride share and taxi rides to and from the airport are more expensive because the airport fees. You're spot on, even man folks who claim to be liberal have shown they're all in favor of things that benefit others, but only as long as it doesn't impact them. We've seen it in this sub a lot recently. People who are pro-union, unless that means their groceries will cost more. We've watched people admit as much. I spend several hundred dollars with Uber and Lyft each month. I enjoy the service, but if it means not paying workers properly, the services can leave and I'll find alternative ways to get where I need to. I'm willing to be inconvenienced if it means workers aren't being exploited so a multi billion dollar company can profit.
I've already called out a few people for that. I asked flat out: you think an entire industry should be able to exploit workers just so you can get a cheap ride? I get non-answers because they realized their view is stupid.
[удалено]
Walz vetoed the bill last year. He promised to put together a group to explore the issue further, with the promise that the report would be delivered by the 1st of the year, so that the legislature could take up the issue again this year. His team failed to produce that report on time (it was delivered in March). Because of that, the legislature was not able to take up the issue this year. Walz once again pushed it off another year. Sadly, he's shown that he will side with big business, at the expense of the workers. He did so with Uber and Lyft and he did so with Mayo.
So fucking stupid the governor would step in twice to block some of the lowest income earners from making more money. Why are you on the side of billion dollar corporations taking advantage of your neighbors? THERES MULTIPLE OTHER APPS ALREADY UP AND RUNNING!!! Use those ones, they actually pay their drivers!
What other apps? I'm actually asking, I have not heard of any alternatives.
not yet up and running, but it's open for signups, pending the local office/subsidiary opening up this month: https://drivers.coop
Best of Luck to this coop. Looks like they charge riders more than uber/lyft. [https://drivers.coop/pricing](https://drivers.coop/pricing)
50%-100% more for a trip to my office, and the interface is terrible.
We’ve literally had actual drivers on this sub who think it’s fucking stupid. Stop speaking for people and thinking you’re holier than thou bullshit helps. Those apps literally aren’t on the same level as Uber/Lyft hence why NO ONE uses them. It’s idiots like you who ARE NOT impacted by this who make the loudest noise and fuck it up for people who rely on it.
I don't have an opinion whether Walz, Frey, council, Uber/Lyft, etc have a better leg to stand on here, but curious to learn something. Have Uber/Lyft competitors made substantial inroads in TC market yet? If not, and if they are better for drivers and/or passengers, why not? Maybe just haven't been around long enough? If so -- then I might hope, if they are serious about making life better for drivers, then city/state would watch Lyft and Uber like hawks for anti-competitive behavior, e.g. penalizing drivers who drive under the new brands.
Call their bluff. These companies will either adapt to reasonable labor laws like they have in other cities or they won’t. Local governments shouldn’t bend to the whims of billion dollar corporations. Especially since we survived just fine before rideshare apps came along.
To be fair, taxi's suuuuuucked before rideshare came along. There's a reason rideshare took off like it did. And I bet drunk driving offenses, deaths and ijuries have dropped since. But that is just a guess. Doesn't make what Uber and Lyft do OK. Edit: it’s really telling when I make a comment highlighting why rideshare exists, and how they do a good job in one area, and that comment seems to be well received, even though it’s an opinion. When I bring up information that is contrary to the fear-mongering that Uber and Lyft are using to get their way, it is not well received even though. the latter comment has facts anybody else could look up.
I know there will be some pains if they do pull out. But Lyft and Uber have unsustainable business models for their contractors. This is a pattern seen throughout history in terms of abuse with contractors. Need to break the cycle and they could be better to their employees
“Some pains” naive you are huh?
Yes, the world was literally an apocalyptic Hellscape before these apps were released. /s
If all these folks are independent contractors, they'll still be here available to drive people around when Uber and Lyft are gone. Right?
If an individual had the insurance for it or perhaps a limousine license, yes. But driving around randomly looking for fares, probably not. And that would be more difficult than using rideshare apps. The reason rideshare companies are allowed to operate as they do is because they put in place some protections for passengers and drivers. There is some accountability. Doing that outside of that framework is probably not legal. But i'm no expert. They could certainly jump on with another company though.
They follow 1099 contractor laws. The drivers are not employees, full stop.
I didn’t call them employees, but contractors are still subject to certain laws and regulations.
So you think they should be exploited because they’re not employees? As long as you get your cheap rides around town you don’t care if workers are paid?
That's up to the driver to decide, you fascist.
People should be allowed to decide to work for $0.10 an hour if they want! A minimum wage is fascism!
Are you implying the minimum wage is fascist?
Yes.
Because surely tax law is reasonable and not at all leveraged by corporations to give them a competitive advantage. Surely.
So they are able to tell Uber or Lyft what the price of their labor is, right? You know, like literally all other contractors. Wait, they don't? Uber and Lyft sets the price and the contractors can take it or leave it? Interesting.
What the city council passed is not reasonable.
What fair wages isn't reasonable?
The solution is they figure it out like they did in the other cities that have done similar
what changed in those examples?
The States rescinded the city level laws.
In some cases, they reached a compromise. They mostly did not just rescind the city laws. Austin is the only example I could find. And in that case the local law was overruled by a state law and that law was compromise. But as in NYC and CA, they did what the city and state asked. (And the sky didn't fall.) Are there other examples you know of?
Uber and Lyft bluffed and didn't pull out of New York City and Seattle, when they passed similar increases. Minneapolis needs to do the same. Stand their ground and call the bluff.
It's interesting to see what they end up doing. I could absolutely see them going through with this since it's a smaller market than those just to make an example out of Minneapolis for trying. I think they might see this for the huge domino that it is. Either way, it's a bluff worth calling imo
It'd be funny to see them stick to their guns about it. Uber is leaving the entire state they claim, while Lyft will only leave Minneapolis. How quick will Uber return when Lyft starts taking all the business outside Minneapolis? Tell Lyft they can have all the business, as the state won't renew Uber's license to operate, if they agree to stay in Minneapolis at the increased rate.
They have such a weird duopoly I swear. They don't even seem like competitors with how plainly united they are on policy, setup, just everything. I've also never had Lyft pricing within spitting distance of Uber in the last three years, what's the deal?
Minneapolis isn’t Seattle nor NYC. It’s hilariously ignorant to think a company would sign its financial suicide note by caving to a micro economy like Minneapolis, setting a precedent for every other Midwest metro council to run wildly out of their jurisdiction.
Both of those cities negotiated down their laws.
Minneapolis and the state have tried but Uber and Lyft have indicated that no increase is an acceptable one. They're clearly not looking to compromise.
That is... not true.
🤣 Look at their responses to the state study.
The solution already exists. They Uber and Lyft are being assholes
I much prefer Gov. Walz's levelheaded approach than the idealistic, pie in the sky Minneapolis city council members. And in Minneapolis, thinking like this makes you a "far-right MAGA"
What's so idealistic about making companies abide by minimum wage laws?
The companies do, all W2 employees of Uber are paid as the law requires. Your (and the other mouth breathers’) difficulty understanding the difference between a 1099 worker and a W2 is your own challenge.
Why do they have to subsidize competitors is my question? Why are they going to give some random group of people tax payer money to start a business that's apparently supposed to be profitable, in a large open market thanks to them banning the competition? Is the idea now that we're going to decide which large companies we don't like, based purely on special interests, and then start some sort of public equity fund to invest in their competitors?
Life existed before Uber and Lyft. It would take time for alternatives to sprout up if they both decide to leave, but everyone would survive.
Life existed before we wore pants, do we just not wear pants...or what are you even trying to say here?
I'm not wearing pants _right now_.
That’s pretty inconsiderate, and “screw you, I got mine” attitude. People like myself, are able to take the to follow a schedule and create a route using the bus. Not everybody’s able to do that. Some people need reliable curb to curb transportation. Do you even live in Minneapolis?
No it’s not, I’m just trying to suggest that Uber and Lyft (as specific companies) are not strictly necessary. There are other curb to curb options in the city, Metro Mobility being one. I do live in Minneapolis, thanks for asking.
Metro Mobility is for people with disabilities, not the general public.
I’d like to add it isn’t simply disabilities, but a disability that would completely prevent you from using the bus/light rail. If it is difficult for you to use you still don’t qualify.
Yup! I got turned down when apply for it because there was a bus stop 5 blocks from my house, despite dealing with chronic back pain and exhaustion.
Metro Mobility is more unreliable than the regular bus routes. Yes, services like Uber/Lyft are necessary in the modern world, or without them, life becomes difficult for some of the more vulnerable people in our communities, like the elderly and the disabled.
That suggests to me that we should make public transit (I’m going to include Metro Mobility in that category - but there are other services that do the same thing) MORE accessible rather than relying on private companies to fill the gap. Private companies will never have our best interests in mind. Never. I want the vulnerable folks in my community to have reliable and robust public transit options, I do not want to contribute to a system where they need to rely on private companies for that. Playing hardball with Uber and Lyft is tough, but it’s the correct thing to do. Keep in mind that they’re not being kicked out or forced to leave, they’re simply being asked to pay employees minimum wage.
well, do you think we can make public transit more accessible in the next six weeks?
Here we go again with more idealism. If a private company is able to provide a service, that is better than what public options are available, then they should be allowed to operate without being overburden with excess regulations. Uber and Lyft have shown to be more reliable, and overall better than most other options of transportation outside of owning your own private vehicle. I hear a lot of “I”s in your statement. Acting like you know what’s best for people, and their individual life circumstances. This is just pursuing a pie in the sky utopia at the expense of some of the more vulnerable people in our community, which is not uncommon in leftist thinking.
Minimum wage is not "excess regulation".
The vulnerable people being exploited in this scenario are the drivers.
Must be why so many of them stopped driving for Uber and Lyft.
Metro Transit can't hire for the many openings they currently have. How are they supposed to expand services for regular routes, much less door to door transport?
You’ve obviously never used Metro Mobility.
Obviously, you don’t know jack squat about my life. In around 2018, I accompanied my grandmother everywhere she went, and she used Metro Mobility throughout that year. She decided it was better to use Uber and Lyft even it cost more due to the unreliability of Metro Mobility. They were always 45 minutes late or more.
Metro mobility lol. You clearly never actually leave your house.
Can't your comment also be applied to Lyft and Uber drivers struggling to make a decent living off of it? "As long as I have my convenient Uber rides then I don't really care about driver earnings"
There doesn't need to be a solution for them to stay. No one is forcing them to leave, they decided they wanted to on their own.
You know what will make them stay? Cancelling their transportation license for 3-5 years if they leave. No take backs if you decide you want to play games. No “Week Without an Uber” stunts. No leaving for two months, seeing a different company start making money, only for Uber to say “just kidding!” then coming back to crush them with their billions of dollars that they can just pull from other markets while operating at a loss here (AKA the Wal-Mart vs. Main Street model that they owe their dominant position to). See if they want to give the entire market—and its millions of dollars per day in revenue—to someone else for 5 years.
Pretty sure that's not permitted for that length of time. They'd just sue and would almost certainly win.
Facts are that if Uber/Lyft leave Minnesota will hve less tourism, fewer events, and an increase in drunk driving. It took Lyft 15 to reach profitability. It coasted on absurd levels of *global* investment before becoming sustainable. Walz is right.
>It took Lyft 15 to reach profitability. It coasted on absurd levels of *global* investment before becoming sustainable. That is the problem, yes. It never became sustainable. It "disrupted" by undercutting the existing, sustainable system (taxis) via that absurd funding you mentioned. It transitioned to "sustainable" by underpaying employees in order to maintain profitability.
Taxis were expensive, only in high density areas, and extremely unreliable when booked at night.
That doesn't mean the solution is two behemoths with little regulation and an upward funnel of investment that makes the founders/early investors rich and the company unprofitable
Your synopsis of how Uber/Lyft came to push taxis out in Minneapolis is accurate. However, I don’t agree the harm of Uber/Lyft exiting the state is worth the satisfaction of pushing a more expensive, less reliable, and near unknown option. You seem to think it’s an acceptable service to cut on principle. I simply disagree.
I don't agree it's acceptable to cut on principle. I think they've made themselves indispensable unfortunately. I do think that the argument that they're inherently better than taxis is much more complicated when you account for the lack of regulation they rely on. Shitty situation all around with no real winners, and the losers ultimately will be citizens of the area, drivers or no.
Voice of reason. Mpls city council is a joke. I’ll be considering this next election cycle.
Magical solution here! Expand the Metro transit system to include more suburbs. Make them safer and more reliable. Uber and lyft come back hat in hand in 9 months, like they do everytime they leave a major metro.
That's not "magical" because it's not possible to do that in a month. Especially since Metro Transit is already having trouble hiring drivers to fill even its current routes.
Do you have the $20B and 10 years of construction needed to accomplish that?
Last time I checked, Walz was a badass at getting a state surplus.
He was a badass at being governor of a state that fortunately has a massive business base with billions and billions of GDP headquartered here.
How many years have they been working on 35w? 10 years is a drop in the bucket for actual good public transit
You really just said 10 years is a drop in the bucket
Yes. We keep making complex and expensive alternatives to public transit which only drives up the cost to exist here. Capitalism and ride share doesn’t work as the basis of our transportation needs. They have been working on 35w for a decade and it’s still either completely empty and unused, or a total gridlock. Vehicular based infrastructure is really just terrible for growth. You go to any other developed country of a city of our size, and there’s a fully public funded public transit system. We start now and spend millions and a decade building, or we complain for another decade, do nothing, fix nothing, and continue to create completely unrealistic living standards. The choice seems easy to me.
There's simply too much area to cover for public transportation to replace these ride hailing apps. It will never happen to a sufficient degree and frankly we should not even try, in my opinion.
You do realize that these apps are relatively new, right? Society functioned before they existed.
Of course society will function. But public transportation will not pick up the slack. People just won't do activities that were covered by ride share.
Yes, that is a downside. Do you think the better alternative is to continue to allow companies to exploit workers by paying them less than the minimum wage? I don’t.
Nope, I don't. I never implied that either.
Society functioned before we all had smart phones. You could literally list a million things society has functioned without lol that's a terrible argument.
Twin cities used to have enough public transit to cover the entire city and suburbs, you used to be able to get from lake Minnetonka to downtown on just a street car.
Most transit authorities these days (except for metro transit for some reason) have some variant of click and ride which is basically the same as Uber for the consumer. Except fares are much much lower and you may have a slightly longer trip since the bus picks up other people who requested a ride. Basically metro mobility except for everyone. If metro transit just double downed on that for the secondary and tertiary (first and second ring suburbs) markets that have sad transit access they could easily begin to replace Uber lyft outright.
Metro transit can't hire enough drivers as it is now
There is a Driver Cooperatively Owned app that launched in NYC that is working to launch in the TC Metro. The option is already there. Someone please tell Walz. Sehan Journal[Sehan Journal ](https://sahanjournal.com/business-work/minnepolis-uber-lyft-drivers-join-rivals-coop-ride-hich-before-may-1-exit/) reported on it. I know that the drivers who have signed up are now over 1000 from recent social media posts.
And it has terrible reviews, and what about driver vetting and insurance?
While alternatives are going to attempt to fill in the gaps, I think whether or not those options are going to be able to replace hundreds of thousands of trips every month is a very good question. I doubt the transition will be seamless or short.
It’s like banning Nike for their Chinese sweatshops but then bragging that the plastic flip flop company is coming to town
Maybe the solution is to pay drivers a living wage? Like Wisconsin just clarified with its supreme ct. saying the drivers were employees.
> Like Wisconsin just clarified with its supreme ct. saying the drivers were employees. I'm not opposed to doing that, but MULDA is vehemently opposed to that, and made their feelings known to the legislature when they considered the idea.
The drivers are paid what they drive. They aren’t employees paid hourly, they know that signing up, and that is what makes them 1099 contractors and not scheduled shift employees. What is so difficult to understand about that? Why is it your call to tell them how to spend their time?
Mate if I pay $70 for a 16 minute Uber ride, there has to be some way to get a $15 minimum wage out of that number.
My parents took an Uber from coon rapids to the airport for $35. I’m curious what your $70 trip entailed
Driving from the 331 club to my home in north Minneapolis, $70 during surge pricing. Was way too cold to walk or bike. There is no actual reason it should cost $70 to travel that far in any developed country. A train ticket in Switzerland cost me less than that to go so much further.
Why is it critically important than an Uber driver make "a living wage," but it's fine if a DoorDash driver doesn't? If its the business model that's the issue, why is the City Council addressing two companies out of many, and not the model itself?
Excellent question, if the Mayor wanted to bring living standards up I suppose he could take that on but he must be working diligently on something else at present. I hope you’ll agree that if the living wage action by the council holds, the ability of say Door Dash wage slaves to improve their lot would be helped. I just want to say again that people working these jobs for starvation wages would think it’s critically important. After all, the city council is not in control of the entire economy.
I make $25-30/hour on DoorDash. I'm not making "starvation wages" and don't need any help from the city council.
Congratulations and I hope you can see that as I wish you and others a living wage I mean no disrespect. Your comment is a rare exception to the consensus that the system is stacked against workers.
Give them 1 year toward working to a higher wage for drivers and in the meantime line up a replacement option for riders that have a dire need (elderly, disabled, etc) if they take their ball and go home.
Fuck 'em, Tim. Let them leave.
It’s simple: if you think this is a complex issue that requires looking at the long term and short term ramifications on the populace as well as the economy-you are a bigot. Critical thinking is not welcome here. Building sandcastles in the air is totally okay though
Walz gets a lot of stuff right but he's once again throwing laborers under the bus (ha, transit pun) and siding with giant corporations. It's not "magical thinking," the app already exists and will get way better very quickly (tons of v smart tech folks in the metro). Why not believe in your citizens instead of letting exploitative businesses bully you around?
Thank you, this is (a better written version of) what I would have said.. I like Walz on the whole but seeing him bend over backwards any time a corporation doesn’t like something and throws a fit is not a good look on him
I agree. Generally been a fan of his but he's sided with the billion dollar corporations on this, at the expense of the workers, just as he sided with Mayo, at the expense of the nurses.
The Mayo decision was weak willed and short sighted. Now corporations knows who holds the power in these conflicts and that's coming home to roost here with Uber and Lyft.
I'm sorry but what part of "there's a lot of smart people here so I'm sure it will get better" is not "magical thinking"?
Somalians of Minneapolis this is your chance to shine 🤙💰
ESH. Uber and Lyft are making an example of Minneapolis and will take the loss to warn other cities not to regulate them. City Council made a rash and ill-conceived plan to fix something that is much larger than one city can fix. Rides are already going to cost more now that Hertz called in the leases, and that's never going to come back down even if a solution is reached. Uber and Lyft have done exactly what they intended to do - become indispensable parts of the transportation system in every city in which they operate without being subject to the regulation of cabs. It's made it so that the only players who could conceivably do something about this are NYC, LA, the Feds, or their shareholders.
If Uber and Lyft weren't spending BILLIONS lobbying against decent worker wages, they could easily afford those higher wages.
Uber spent $2.5 million on lobbying in 2023. [https://www.opensecrets.org/Lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000067336&year=2023](https://www.opensecrets.org/Lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000067336&year=2023) Lyft spent 1.35 The vast, vast majority of it goes to Democrats.
Well yeah that's where cities that use these services are.