←back to thread

Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

(www.bbc.com)
256 points reubensutton | 7 comments | 25 Nov 19 10:19 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
thinkindie ◴[25 Nov 19 14:49 UTC] No.21628527[source]▶
have you ever wondered what makes services like Uber affordable? 1) underpaid drivers 2) VC money dropped into an otherwise unsustainable business

I'm pretty sure Uber will raise prices the moment it kills the competition

replies(5): >>21628583 #>>21628645 #>>21628683 #>>21628694 #>>21630014 #
ApolloFortyNine ◴[25 Nov 19 15:05 UTC] No.21628683[source]▶
> underpaid drivers

This is and always will be a matter of opinion.

Uber is not putting a gun to anyone's head. If it's not profitable for you to drive, you don't have to.

replies(5): >>21628785 #>>21628846 #>>21629074 #>>21629235 #>>21629286 #
Crashbat ◴[25 Nov 19 15:23 UTC] No.21628846[source]▶
Except then you can't eat? It's not that it's not profitable, it's that the earnings drivers make are meager compared to what people need to sustain themselves. You make it sound like anybody who's on minimum wage just doesn't realise that they could go elsewhere for higher wages!
replies(2): >>21628945 #>>21628959 #
1. BurningFrog ◴[25 Nov 19 15:32 UTC] No.21628945[source]▶
Always fascinated by the idea that paying someone $8/h is a crime, but paying them $0/h is perfectly fine.

Such enormous cognitive dissonance. We humans are so good at that.

replies(3): >>21629686 #>>21631158 #>>21632092 #
2. RodoBobJon ◴[25 Nov 19 16:26 UTC] No.21629686[source]▶
The idea that minimum wages kills jobs is not as well supported as you might think. People commonly take overly-simplified econ 101 labor market theories as gospel when the empirical evidence about the effects of minimum wage increases is decidedly mixed: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/11/20/20952151/shoul...
replies(1): >>21632282 #
3. lazyasciiart ◴[25 Nov 19 18:27 UTC] No.21631158[source]▶
Paying someone $0 to work for you would be illegal too.
replies(1): >>21631477 #
4. WilliamEdward ◴[25 Nov 19 18:57 UTC] No.21631477[source]▶
What they're saying is that the worker either gets 8/hour with a job or 0/hour with no job. I'd rather have the job.
replies(1): >>21632665 #
5. lmm ◴[25 Nov 19 19:55 UTC] No.21632092[source]▶
Unemployed people have various forms of legal protection in place that "underemployed" people don't. You can claim unemployment because you were fired, but not because your hours were cut.
6. BurningFrog ◴[25 Nov 19 20:13 UTC] No.21632282[source]▶
I'm not talking about that.

I just find it crazy that in the scenario where Uber pays someone poor $8/h while I pay them 0$/h, Uber is the bad guy, while I am completely blameless.

The only actor actually paying the poor person is somehow the problem!

It's hard for me to come up with a logical framework that supports that conclusion. So I think it's not actually a matter of logic.

7. lazyasciiart ◴[25 Nov 19 20:50 UTC] No.21632665{3}[source]▶
And before it was illegal, people preferred for their five year olds to have the job too.