Uber and the "sharing economy"

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

101 posts / 0 new

Comments

Uber does not increase competition. It increases supply. Increasing supply drives prices down. This includes wages. Creative destruction leading to labor destruction.

big bird's picture
big bird
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote big bird:

Uber does not increase competition. It increases supply. Increasing supply drives prices down. This includes wages. Creative destruction leading to labor destruction.

And thousands of people able to supplement their income, as I stated earlier my cousin drives for uber a couple nights a week to help save up for a down payment on a house.

The thing about this industry is how demand fluctuates. Weekends and holiday nights will be much busier than a Tuesday. There are only so many number of cabs that can be feasible full time, the Uber system allows the flexibility to really increase supply without the capital cost associated with maintaining a full time taxi that would sit unused 99 percent of the time.

In this case, supply has increased demand.

http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-uber-restaurant-drinking-201...

gumball's picture
gumball
Joined:
Dec. 12, 2013 11:02 am
Quote gumball:
Quote porches-n-titchforks:

I guess I am not really surprised you lack a working definition of humane. Compassion, respect, concern... you know, that sort of stuff. And I said more humane. Look, I have provided more than enough evidence in this thread that Uber is a predatory and exploitative company with little to no regard for it's "driver partners" or indeed even it's customers. You have done nothing to change my opinion.

Because they are not paid enough?

If you are not even going to read and consider what I post in this thread why should I continue to interact with you?

porches-n-titchforks's picture
porches-n-titchforks
Joined:
Feb. 11, 2016 10:06 am
Quote gumball:
Quote big bird:

Uber does not increase competition. It increases supply. Increasing supply drives prices down. This includes wages. Creative destruction leading to labor destruction.

And thousands of people able to supplement their income, as I stated earlier my cousin drives for uber a couple nights a week to help save up for a down payment on a house.

The thing about this industry is how demand fluctuates. Weekends and holiday nights will be much busier than a Tuesday. There are only so many number of cabs that can be feasible full time, the Uber system allows the flexibility to really increase supply without the capital cost associated with maintaining a full time taxi that would sit unused 99 percent of the time.

In this case, supply has increased demand.

http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-uber-restaurant-drinking-201...

uber increases supply of drivers which drives down wages. The variable amount of nightlife will not increase sufficiently to drive up demand enough to offset decreased wages due to massively increased supply.

big bird's picture
big bird
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote gumball:
Quote porches-n-titchforks:

Indeed. The first industry that employs drivers to fall to robots will be trucking. But the robots are coming. No doubt.

I still have lots of problems imagining how a robot will drive on a busy saturday night in madison wisconsin, especially in the winter when the road surfaces are obscured by snow and ice. Sensors will have to be embedded in every roadway. Presumably these robot cars are bristling with sensors which stop it any time it is in danger of hitting something, anything. Downtown Madison on a busy friday or saturday night is crawling with drunk college students. A robot cab would literally just sit at some intersections for hours while drunk students walk in front of it or purposely screw around with it. Not to mention, they will make a complete mess of them. They will be rolling trash, puke receptacles. I don't think americans are ever going to really embrace robot cars. We like driving. We like our cars. They will eventually become a reality, but I am skeptical of how popular they will be. And the first child or even a beloved pet that gets run over by one of them will call the whole deal into question. There is something awful about a robot killing a child. And it will happen. It is inevitable.

Drivers kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people a year. While there will still be accidents, driverless cars will be much safer. Not only cabbies will be looking for jobs, there will be less need for auto body shops and a greatly reduced strain on trauma centers.

It's not rational but as I said, "There is something awful about a robot killng a child." The statistics won't matter.

I just have a really hard time imagining Americans adopting them in anything less then a couple of generations. I spend a lot of time driving around a city and observing people's driving behavior and it's stupid and irrational. You would think everyone is trying to make it to an ER with a dying relative in the car. You think they are going to be happy with a robot poking along at the speed limit and letting every car that wants in front of it cut it off. I don't think so.

porches-n-titchforks's picture
porches-n-titchforks
Joined:
Feb. 11, 2016 10:06 am
Quote big bird:
Quote gumball:
Quote big bird:

Uber does not increase competition. It increases supply. Increasing supply drives prices down. This includes wages. Creative destruction leading to labor destruction.

And thousands of people able to supplement their income, as I stated earlier my cousin drives for uber a couple nights a week to help save up for a down payment on a house.

The thing about this industry is how demand fluctuates. Weekends and holiday nights will be much busier than a Tuesday. There are only so many number of cabs that can be feasible full time, the Uber system allows the flexibility to really increase supply without the capital cost associated with maintaining a full time taxi that would sit unused 99 percent of the time.

In this case, supply has increased demand.

http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-uber-restaurant-drinking-201...

uber increases supply of drivers which drives down wages. The variable amount of nightlife will not increase sufficiently to drive up demand enough to offset decreased wages due to massively increased supply.

Then why did Uber have to add surge pricing in order to get more drivers to meet demand during the high times?

gumball's picture
gumball
Joined:
Dec. 12, 2013 11:02 am
Quote big bird: Uber does not increase competition.

Well, actually, they do. Without a doubt the traditional cab companies are in a war with the TNCs. We haven't lowered prices, but we are making efforts to improve service. That is good for the consumer. The sensible regulations that the traditional cab companies comply with are also good for the consumer.

Quote big bird: It increases supply. Increasing supply drives prices down.

I know that seems intuitive, but it is not always the case. Where deregulation has been tried the number of cabs on the road increases, but because individual drivers incomes decrease prices actually increase in some cases to compensate.

Quote big bird:This includes wages. Creative destruction leading to labor destruction.

The overall effect of the TNCs entry into Madison has been to drive down wages. We have lost market share and we are commission based. Fewer rides = less income.

We are unafraid of fair competition on a level playing field. That is not what we have. One set of regulations governs the local cab companies; sensible regulations which protect the consumer. Another set of state regulations govern the TNCs. They are weak regulations which are unenforced and do not protect the consumer.

Make no mistake, the goal of the TNCs is to drive the traditional taxi companies out of business so they can then monopolize the industry. They enter a market, ignore local regulations, charge a large enough amount per mile to attract driver partners not savvy enough to actually count all their expenses, and incrementally lower the per mile charge to undercut taxi pricing without scaring away their slave partners. To compensate they start taking a larger cut of the fare. It's a balancing act. Their business model expects that they will sustain losses as they build market share and they have enormous resources to slowly bleed the taxi companies. In the long run it is not sustainable because among other reasons there is not a limitless pool of suckers willing to drive for them. 50% of people that start driving for Uber stop driving for Uber within a year.

I suppose the long game is to rollout the robots once the taxi industry has been decimated. Gee I can't wait for the day when robots do everything for us and their owners share their wealth with everyone and we can all live happily ever after.

porches-n-titchforks's picture
porches-n-titchforks
Joined:
Feb. 11, 2016 10:06 am

Taxi's are being replaced by a better system, Uber etc. It is like Blockbuster being replaced by Redbox. Eventually Uber will be replaced by driverless taxi's. Just like Redbox is being replaced by Netflix.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am
Quote Legend:

Taxi's are being replaced by a better system, Uber etc. It is like Blockbuster being replaced by Redbox. Eventually Uber will be replaced by driverless taxi's. Just like Redbox is being replaced by Netflix.

Poor analogy. No one's safety is being endangered by netflix.

Read the thread. Uber is not a better system by any metric you want to use.

porches-n-titchforks's picture
porches-n-titchforks
Joined:
Feb. 11, 2016 10:06 am
Quote porches-n-titchforks:
Quote Legend:

Taxi's are being replaced by a better system, Uber etc. It is like Blockbuster being replaced by Redbox. Eventually Uber will be replaced by driverless taxi's. Just like Redbox is being replaced by Netflix.

Poor analogy. No one's safety is being endangered by netflix.

Read the thread. Uber is not a better system by any metric you want to use.

Who's safety has been endangered by Uber? Do you think I can not find examples of cabbies committing crimes?

gumball's picture
gumball
Joined:
Dec. 12, 2013 11:02 am
Quote porches-n-titchforks:

Make no mistake, the goal of the TNCs is to drive the traditional taxi companies out of business so they can then monopolize the industry. They enter a market, ignore local regulations, charge a large enough amount per mile to attract driver partners not savvy enough to actually count all their expenses, and incrementally lower the per mile charge to undercut taxi pricing without scaring away their slave partners. To compensate they start taking a larger cut of the fare. It's a balancing act. Their business model expects that they will sustain losses as they build market share and they have enormous resources to slowly bleed the taxi companies. In the long run it is not sustainable because among other reasons there is not a limitless pool of suckers willing to drive for them. 50% of people that start driving for Uber stop driving for Uber within a year.

What are you basing this on? They had to introduce surge pricing to get enough drivers to meet demand. A high percentage of their drivers are part time, if they do not make enough to make it worth their time they will not do it.

http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/22/uber-study/

Seem like pretty good pay for part time unskilled labor to me.

gumball's picture
gumball
Joined:
Dec. 12, 2013 11:02 am

I think you've hit the nail on the head with this one:

"Both Thom and Stephanie Miller, who also does ads for Uber, are syndicated by Westwood One, which is owned by Cumulus Media."

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm
Quote theurj:

I think you've hit the nail on the head with this one:

"Both Thom and Stephanie Miller, who also does ads for Uber, are syndicated by Westwood One, which is owned by Cumulus Media."

Or perhaps Thom and Stephanie see it as a great service that provides jobs and a service that people want?

gumball's picture
gumball
Joined:
Dec. 12, 2013 11:02 am

Only if they're otherwise fooling themselves from their usual progressive values. I think both are too smart for that but have bills to pay so bend to their money masters.

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm

E.g., see this Hartmann report, which includes the CA court case against Uber:

"A recent court decision could threaten the future of Uber. A judge in California has granted class action status to drivers for the ride-share service who claim that the company treats them like regular employees, without providing the corresponding benefits. And, this case could have broader implications for the so-called "sharing economy" as a whole. As more Americans start providing services on-demand through apps and websites, labor law experts worry what it means for the future of workers' rights. Without the benefits that come along with full-time employment, including sick time and social security contributions, more workers are missing out on protections that they would receive as regular employees. The "sharing economy" may force our nation to redefine what it means to be an employee, and find a way to protect workers who don't fall into traditional categories. We can't stop technology, or erase the need for individuals to supplement their stagnant wages, but we can make sure that workers are protected in this new age."

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm

And here's a 2012 Hartmann article on the real sharing economy when owned by the workers, not a corporation. Therein he even mentions Union Cab. An edited excerpt:

"Corporations don't SHARE technological infrastructure like cell phone towers and underground wires - so that more and more small businesses can get in the game and give consumers more choice. They control them to maintain their own profits. The entertainment industry doesn't SHARE it's movies and music - they lock them down - and lobby for laws to throw people who call themselves 'file sharers' in prison. Sharing has no place in our economy - but as corporate capitalism continues to rot out our democracy and our middle class - it must. Luckily - the transition to a sharing economy is already underway."

"Co-ops are different than corporations - because instead of a small group of shareholders and a CEO owning the company, calling the shots, and pocketing most of the money - ALL the workers own the company - ALL the workers have a vote in how the company is run - and ALL the workers SHARE the profits the company makes. That means the wealth is shared. And people still have an incentive to work hard - because the harder everyone works - the more profits everyone makes. The only difference is we're no longer competing with each other - we're cooperating. And the Union Cab cooperative model is working. It's the largest of four cab fleets in Madison, with the most cars and best service, and an employee retention rate of 85% with most workers sticking around more than 5 years. In fact - there are 9 other co-ops just like Union Cab - all within five miles of the state capital in Madison - from bakeries to engineering companies to pharmacies. "

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm

In this clip Hartmann discusses Uber and how the so-called sharing economy limits people to part-time work with no benefits, no unions and no recourse to bad treatment. It's a corporate model that is changing the very nature of work for the worse. And yet he also admits to being a satisfied Uber customer and supporting a system that he finds not in the least amenable to a just and fair work envirnoment.

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm

And then we have Hartmann's book, The Crash of 2016. After several chapters on why the US system is corrupt due to the Royalists, the 1% and top corporations, he provides solutions in Part 5 of the book. Chapter 15 is entitled "Democratize the Economy," where the likes of Union Cab moves us in that direction, not Uber. He knows what's wrong and what we need to do, but is he willing to walk the talk?

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm
Quote gumball:Who's safety has been endangered by Uber?
Mostly random Kalamazoo, MI residents.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote gumball:
Quote porches-n-titchforks:
Quote Legend:

Taxi's are being replaced by a better system, Uber etc. It is like Blockbuster being replaced by Redbox. Eventually Uber will be replaced by driverless taxi's. Just like Redbox is being replaced by Netflix.

Poor analogy. No one's safety is being endangered by netflix.

Read the thread. Uber is not a better system by any metric you want to use.

Who's safety has been endangered by Uber?

http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents

Quote gumball:Do you think I can not find examples of cabbies committing crimes?

Of course you can find examples.

There is a regulatory system in place though for legitimate taxi companies. Rather than hiding a driver's identity as Uber does, they will immediately assist law enforcement in any way. All legitimate taxi companies employ drivers that are fingerprinted and background checked by law enforcement and issued permits/licenses. This is the best system for keeping criminals from driving people for hire. Industry leading you might call it.

porches-n-titchforks's picture
porches-n-titchforks
Joined:
Feb. 11, 2016 10:06 am
Quote gumball:
Quote porches-n-titchforks:

Make no mistake, the goal of the TNCs is to drive the traditional taxi companies out of business so they can then monopolize the industry. They enter a market, ignore local regulations, charge a large enough amount per mile to attract driver partners not savvy enough to actually count all their expenses, and incrementally lower the per mile charge to undercut taxi pricing without scaring away their slave partners. To compensate they start taking a larger cut of the fare. It's a balancing act. Their business model expects that they will sustain losses as they build market share and they have enormous resources to slowly bleed the taxi companies. In the long run it is not sustainable because among other reasons there is not a limitless pool of suckers willing to drive for them. 50% of people that start driving for Uber stop driving for Uber within a year.

What are you basing this on? They had to introduce surge pricing to get enough drivers to meet demand. A high percentage of their drivers are part time, if they do not make enough to make it worth their time they will not do it.

http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/22/uber-study/

Seem like pretty good pay for part time unskilled labor to me.

From the techcrunch article you link to:

"The study is careful to note that because Uber drivers are self-employed, those numbers don’t take into account driving expenses such as gasoline, depreciation, or insurance that employed drivers would have covered."

Pfffttt.

I think I'll stick with the calculation I cited earlier by an actual driver for Uber:

Quote porches-n-titchforks:

Good explanation of what an Uber driver really earns:

My Non-variables:
Base rate = $0.50
Mileage rate = $1.00 per mile
Time rate = $0.17 per minute
SRF per trip = $1.00
Cost per mile to drive car = $0.32
No surge rates
No guarantee bonuses

My Variables:
Average miles per hour driving: 30 MPH (average includes time spent while stopped, i.e. traffic lights, waiting for customer, etc...)
Downtime per hour: zero (meaning no waiting for pings, driver is 100% utilized by Uber system)
Ratio of dead miles to billable miles: 50%
Trips per hour: 3

  • 30 miles driven in an hour with 50% being billable produces 15 billable miles per hour.
  • At $1.00 per mile, that produces $15.00 in mileage revenue per hour.
  • Zero downtime per hour produces 60 minutes of work per hour.
  • 50% ratio of dead miles to billable miles produces 30 minutes of billable minutes per hour.
  • At $0.17 per minute, 30 minutes of billable minutes per hour produces $5.10 in time revenue per hour.
  • 3 trips per hour at $0.50 base rate per trip produces $1.50 in base rate revenue per hour.
  • 3 trips per hour at $1.00 SRF per trip produces $3.00 in SRFs per hour.

$15.00 in mileage revenue per hour, plus $5.10 in time revenue per hour, plus $1.50 in base rate revenue per hour, plus, $3.00 in SRFs per hour equals $24.60 in gross fares per hour.

  • $24.60 minus $3.00 in SRFs equals $21.60 per hour.
  • $21.60 minus Ubers 20% commission (20% of $21.60) equals $17.28 per hour.

Uber driver will receive $17.28 payment from Uber from the $24.60 gross fares per hour.

  • 30 miles driven per hour with a cost of $0.32 per mile equals $9.60 in costs.
  • $17.28 per hour minus $9.60 in costs equals $7.68 per hour.

Uber driver will profit only $7.68 per hour on $24.60 in gross fares, which Uber calls "Driver Earnings".

http://uberpeople.net/threads/math-1-00-mile-7-68-per-hour-at-best.14459/

porches-n-titchforks's picture
porches-n-titchforks
Joined:
Feb. 11, 2016 10:06 am

Reading through those forums it seems that is an outlier. Around $10 and hour before tips is more average, pretty good pay for part time unskilled labor that is 100% flexible.

gumball's picture
gumball
Joined:
Dec. 12, 2013 11:02 am
Quote gumball:

Reading through those forums it seems that is an outlier. Around $10 and hour before tips is more average, pretty good pay for part time unskilled labor that is 100% flexible.

Is that surprising? It comes out with a lower net income because it's more inclusive and honest. I am sure many Uber drivers suppress what they don't want to know. It's sort of like a buddy with a gambling addiction excitedly telling you they just won $1,000! except if they kept track of their net winnings over time they would have to admit they're $2,000 in the hole. If anything the calculation I linked to uses optimistic numbers.

porches-n-titchforks's picture
porches-n-titchforks
Joined:
Feb. 11, 2016 10:06 am
Quote theurj:

Only if they're otherwise fooling themselves from their usual progressive values. I think both are too smart for that but have bills to pay so bend to their money masters.

Apparently, and it's so damn disheartening. Hartmann makes a point of stressing "extra money" in his ads. He says "extra money" over and over again. I guess he wants to emphasize that this should not be a full time job and that is part of his rationalization. And as it turns out most Uber drivers only drive part time. Which makes sense. But most criminals are only criminals part time as well. The fact that a large percentage of Uber drivers are only part time does not mitgate most of the points I have raised in this thread and which Thom is apparently aware of. There is still the lack of proper insurance. There is still the issue of inadequate background checks. There is still the overarching problem the "sharing economy" poses to the application of federal labor laws. There is still the problem of Uber's cut throat, manipulative business practices. There is still the fact that Uber does not pay taxes in the cities and states where their "driver partners" operate (extraction economy). There is still the fact that Kalanick is a billionaire dickhead that thinks Ayn Rand had a fair and rational insight into human nature and he deserves his wealth and power. And there is still the fact that the ultimate aim of Uber is to destroy living wage jobs and replace those jobs with robots.

porches-n-titchforks's picture
porches-n-titchforks
Joined:
Feb. 11, 2016 10:06 am

It's a double-edged sword. If Hartmann doesn't get national distribution via Cumulus, his message doesn't reach many folks. For that he sacrifices having to sell products that otherwise defeat his very message. Never mind that Cumulus has greatly reduced the markets for his show, like San Fran and DC.

On the other hand, Randi Rhodes is coming back to radio with no corporate sponsorship and distribution. She used Kickstarter to get start-up funds and will broadcast over the net and sell subscriptions. I hope her model works and brings back her substantial fan base. It might serve as a model for Hartmann, Miller and the current and former cast from MSNBC.

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm
Quote theurj:

It's a double-edged sword. If Hartmann doesn't get national distribution via Cumulus, his message doesn't reach many folks. For that he sacrifices having to sell products that otherwise defeat his very message.

I'm guessing that is likely the main reason. I have however heard anecdotes about bad experiences Thom has had with taxis transporting, or more accurately refusing to transport, his wife to medical appointments.

porches-n-titchforks's picture
porches-n-titchforks
Joined:
Feb. 11, 2016 10:06 am

Thom has an option to put his money where his mouth is via Alexandria Union Cab: http://www.alexunioncab.com/

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm

There's also a new start-up, worker-owned cab company called Juno: http://www.shareable.net/blog/juno-to-take-on-uber-with-driver-owned-soc...

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/uber-driverless-cars_us_56ec4442e4b0...

This will put you luddites in a tizzy.....

gumball's picture
gumball
Joined:
Dec. 12, 2013 11:02 am

http://observer.com/2016/02/ubers-10-worst-actions-threats-lies-sexism-s...

porches-n-titchforks's picture
porches-n-titchforks
Joined:
Feb. 11, 2016 10:06 am

The "sharing economy?" Sounds good, but the fact is that the haves, who run the rigged economic system, have arranged it so that all the sharing is done horizontally, between and among the 95% who struggle to survive every day, rather than vertically wherein the top 5% would do some downward sharing. The "sharing economy" is, basically the rich saying "Let's you and them share" while excluding themselves from any sharing equation.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

"Uber processes payments for rides outside the U.S. through the Netherlands, a company official testified at the hearing in Australia. Last fall, Fortune reported that, according to presentations to investors, Uber had assigned its IP to the tax haven of Bermuda, leaving less than 2 percent of its net revenue taxable by the U.S.

...

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is crafting more technical ways to block profit shifting. “We can debate whether most of the value of a platform is created in Silicon Valley, where it was developed, or in Ireland, where it is managed, or wherever the service is delivered,” says Pascal Saint-Amans, director of the OECD Tax Centre. “You cannot reasonably argue that value is created in the tax haven where the platform’s only presence is a shell company.”"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/the-sharing-economy-do...

porches-n-titchforks's picture
porches-n-titchforks
Joined:
Feb. 11, 2016 10:06 am

There's quite a difference between the for-profit sharing economy and platform cooperativism. And I'm sure Thom knows about this, as demonstrated in several links above. It's just a matter of putting our money where our mouth is. Some excerpts of the linked article:

“The ‘sharing economy’ wasn’t supposed to be this way' [....] the actual result of the rise of mobile-based sharing platforms has been something else altogether. 'This new economy is not really about sharing at all. Rather, as Trebor Scholz argues in this study, it is an on-demand service economy that it spreading market relations deeper into our lives.'”

"Scholz’s concept of platform cooperativism encompasses three core action areas. The first is the reappropriation of the technological tools that Taskrabbit and other for-profit sharing enterprises are built upon for a different, democratic ownership model. Second, platform cooperativism is 'about solidarity'—the same commitment to the collective over the individual that informed the historical spiritual and worker cooperatives Scholz briefly examines as partial precedents. Finally, platform cooperativism maintains platform capitalism’s focus on innovation and efficiency, but again with the broader objective of contributing to the common good."

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm

Arcade City is a Blockchain-Based, Ride-Sharing Uber Killer.

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm

Thank you for those links theurj. Much food for thought. We're about set to launch our own app. We're in the testing phase. With a decent marketing campaign we should be able to recapture some of the market share we have lost. We operate in an area that is very progressive and we have a loyal customer base that I believe is finally catching up and recognizing what an awful company Uber is on so many fronts.

porches-n-titchforks's picture
porches-n-titchforks
Joined:
Feb. 11, 2016 10:06 am

From Robert Reich's FB post on the gig economy:

"In reality, the so-called 'gig' economy is really two quite different economies. Wealthier Americans are using 'gig economy' platforms to rent assets like their homes (Airbnb) or sell products they own or make, according to a new study. By contrast, low-income workers sell their direct labor, such as working as Uber drivers or TaskRabbit movers. In other words, the gig economy is giving those who already have wealth a higher return on that wealth. But it’s not giving those who only have their own labor a higher return on that labor, because it’s enabling corporations (like Uber) to shift business risks onto workers -- and those added risks are reducing economic security and predictability. Bottom line: The gig economy is widening economic inequality."

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm

I know Thom knows the info in this article, "Uber's consumer democracy: Uber uses the language of consumer choice to subvert democracy." I've heard him rail against this sort of libertarianism countless times. And yet

"Citizens are not synonymous with consumers. Consumers act according to different imperatives, and in ways that often undermine the rights of workers. And if you confer on them supreme power — sidestepping the ballot box and other forms of democratic control — you create a reactionary new order. You create, in a word, libertarianism."

I guess the trade-off for getting his show more widely distributed by Westwood requires him to do these Uber ads. I'm pretty sure Westwood doesn't care what he says about libertarianism as long as he participates in it. Thing is, Westwood is reducing the markets for his show, controlling and limiting that distribution.

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm
Quote theurj:

From Robert Reich's FB post on the gig economy:

"In reality, the so-called 'gig' economy is really two quite different economies. Wealthier Americans are using 'gig economy' platforms to rent assets like their homes (Airbnb) or sell products they own or make, according to a new study. By contrast, low-income workers sell their direct labor, such as working as Uber drivers or TaskRabbit movers. In other words, the gig economy is giving those who already have wealth a higher return on that wealth. But it’s not giving those who only have their own labor a higher return on that labor, because it’s enabling corporations (like Uber) to shift business risks onto workers -- and those added risks are reducing economic security and predictability. Bottom line: The gig economy is widening economic inequality."

Missing from this is that the so called "gig" economy is a way for folks to pick up extra income on the side without the restraints of part time employment. As I stated earlier, my cousin is driving for UBER on weekends to save up enough money for a down payment on a house. This allows him to be with his family as needed while making a good money at his schedule with time that would otherwise be spent in front of a TV (his words).

It is providing an outlet to folks starting out in life with the asset they have to build wealth; time. This does not widen inequality, it shrinks it.

gumball's picture
gumball
Joined:
Dec. 12, 2013 11:02 am
Quote gumball:
Quote theurj:

From Robert Reich's FB post on the gig economy:

"In reality, the so-called 'gig' economy is really two quite different economies. Wealthier Americans are using 'gig economy' platforms to rent assets like their homes (Airbnb) or sell products they own or make, according to a new study. By contrast, low-income workers sell their direct labor, such as working as Uber drivers or TaskRabbit movers. In other words, the gig economy is giving those who already have wealth a higher return on that wealth. But it’s not giving those who only have their own labor a higher return on that labor, because it’s enabling corporations (like Uber) to shift business risks onto workers -- and those added risks are reducing economic security and predictability. Bottom line: The gig economy is widening economic inequality."

Missing from this is that the so called "gig" economy is a way for folks to pick up extra income on the side without the restraints of part time employment. As I stated earlier, my cousin is driving for UBER on weekends to save up enough money for a down payment on a house. This allows him to be with his family as needed while making a good money at his schedule with time that would otherwise be spent in front of a TV (his words).

It is providing an outlet to folks starting out in life with the asset they have to build wealth; time. This does not widen inequality, it shrinks it.

Until people understand that labor is the direct source of profit, no matter how much a given person sinks into their personal assets which they are using in the sharing economy they are reaping a higher rate of return on a higher priced asset for a lower input of energy.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I don't understand....

gumball's picture
gumball
Joined:
Dec. 12, 2013 11:02 am

Some more examples of the real sharing economy.

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgQPj90OrQE

porches-n-titchforks's picture
porches-n-titchforks
Joined:
Feb. 11, 2016 10:06 am
Quote gumball:

I don't understand....

In your defense, that's because it doesn't make any sense.

porches-n-titchforks's picture
porches-n-titchforks
Joined:
Feb. 11, 2016 10:06 am

Thinking aspects of this will fully fail. Uber seems to be screwing there driver's of late.

http://therideshareguy.com/is-uber-screwing-over-its-drivers/

Toddedyer's picture
Toddedyer
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2016 10:59 am

The facts about Uber:

"Internal Uber calculations, provided to BuzzFeed News by Uber, based on data spanning more than a million rides and covering thousands of drivers in three major U.S. markets — Denver, Detroit, and Houston — suggest that drivers in each of the three markets overall earned less than an average of $13.25 an hour after expenses."

"A BuzzFeed News review of the rough internal net pay estimates contained in the leaked documents determined that the models Uber used are highly abstracted and oversimplify certain key calculations. Rather than relying on Uber’s figures, BuzzFeed News conducted an independent analysis of the raw trip data and driver data. Uber subsequently recalculated BuzzFeed’s estimates using a broader and more detailed set of internal data — which it declined to share directly with BuzzFeed News. The company did, however, conduct this recalculation according to BuzzFeed News’ methodology — which it said was 'solid' — and did so in the presence of a BuzzFeed News editor and reporter.

Based on these calculations, it’s possible to estimate that Uber drivers in late 2015 earned approximately $13.17 per hour after expenses in the Denver market (which includes all of Colorado), $10.75 per hour after expenses in the Houston area, and $8.77 per hour after expenses in the Detroit market, less than any earnings figure previously released by the company."

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm

That is damn good pay (and does not even include tips) for part time unskilled labor that is fully up to the driver when and how many hours they want to work.

gumball's picture
gumball
Joined:
Dec. 12, 2013 11:02 am

Reich on Uber and the bullshit spin per his FB post today. Note that former Obama political adviser David Plouffe is now an Uber chief adviser and board member. Revolving corporate doors reveal the true establishment Dem neoliberal economic agenda. Clinton II will be no different. Reich:

"Uber chief adviser and board member (and former Obama adviser) David Plouffe claims the company is a pathway to the American dream. Baloney. According to internal pricing data leaked to Buzzfeed, Uber drivers in several markets make about as much as Walmart workers. In Denver they average $13.17 an hour after expenses; in Houston, $10.75 an hour after expenses; and in Detroit, $8.77 an hour after expenses -- more like the same American nightmare large numbers of workers are now living.

"And they have no labor protections – no unemployment insurance, no worker’s compensation for injuries, no time-and-a-half for overtime, no right to form a union, Uber pays nothing into Social Security for them so they can’t collect it when they retire, no Affordable Care Act healthcare, no minimum wage. Nothing. Nada. Uber calls them “independent contractors.” In this sense, they’re worse off that Walmart workers."

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm

New ridesharing alternative in Austin.

"Austin demonstrates how the sudden loss of an unregulated would-be monopoly (or an Uber, Lyft duopoly in this case) can create an opportunity for people to re-imagine how these services can be better designed and governed to serve the public. It's also a case study in how cities can encourage city-scale enterprises to be democratically-owned and operated by locals for locals, ensuring that the public interest comes before shareholders' interests."

theurj
Joined:
Feb. 24, 2016 2:02 pm
Quote theurj:

New ridesharing alternative in Austin.

"Austin demonstrates how the sudden loss of an unregulated would-be monopoly (or an Uber, Lyft duopoly in this case) can create an opportunity for people to re-imagine how these services can be better designed and governed to serve the public. It's also a case study in how cities can encourage city-scale enterprises to be democratically-owned and operated by locals for locals, ensuring that the public interest comes before shareholders' interests."

Translation; after decades of government protection the cab industry is being forced by competition to innovate and provide a better service.

gumball's picture
gumball
Joined:
Dec. 12, 2013 11:02 am

Uber is betting on driverless cars in ten years!! Its not about sharing its about obtaining a national brand trendy and popular!! So that they will be the Coke of driverless cars!!! They will already have the setup to do this! They just need to increase their usage enough they will destory competitor!! I think they will fail, dont see driverless cars in ten years in mass!!

If so we will be facing great depression employment rates!!! Cops will lose ticket revenues! Massive unemployment and huge funding issue for cops!! If driverless cars take over in ten years!!

Toddedyer's picture
Toddedyer
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2016 10:59 am

The Thom Hartmann Program - Aug 30th 2018

It seems it's all racism, all the time w/the GOP...Neo-Nazi robocall hits Iowa on Molly Tibbett’s murder: “KILL THEM ALL. ” Richard Wolff drops by about the National Debt. Is it a disaster or an OK thing? Also - Trump & The National Enquirer - Is the Economy Here To Serve Us Or Are We Here to Serve the economy?

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system