In this scenario, dispatch would basically be a public utility, and drivers could trust the algorithm not to cheat. I.e. since Uber B and its competitors would be running any driver incentives, Uber A wouldn't even know about it. (And legally shall not know such things.)
I realize this is a half-baked pipe dream, but an interesting thought experiment.
But since Uber B has the brand recognition (through its UI), the question is if there will be a competitor. Nowadays, it seems that consumers converge more and more on a single brand for any service/product, which is probably due to the internet/social media.
so many stories of not getting any rides when they get close to a promotional number of rides. You can't prove it but they are very suspicious that Uber does it
There's also a pretty obvious mechanism for selection bias here regarding which type of situation we're going to hear about. Few people are going to write up a post saying "I got close to my bonus, and then I got more rides, and I got my bonus, and it was fine", whereas people who feel like they're getting screwed tend to be very vocal. So the existence of these stories tells us next to nothing.
This offer exploits loss aversion on the part of those drivers (once they take it up, they don't want to "lose" and have it not be worth it, so they might end up driving even if fares are low).
It's effectively the equivalent of a loyalty card availability in industries of all sorts. You pay $xxx for a card to get a y% reduction on transactions through a certain time period. If you engage in a high volume of transactions, it's +EV and you purchase it. If you don't then it's not +EV and so you don't purchase it. The industry operator profits in either case since their margins exceed the real value of your discount, and so it is win-win for them.
"Ride-sharing" has started to become a commodity and one of the only options left for large companies to out-compete small ones is to have a locked-in supply of drivers. This leads to lowering of standards for registration, temporary incentives, etc. that I think are ultimately bad for the drivers and consumers.
Why should a driver have to decide whether to primarily drive for Uber or Lyft if they aren't an employee of either? If there is no downside to a driver registering for another company, it will allow competition to focus on quality of service, tech, etc. rather than simply having the biggest supply of drivers.
Maybe a driver has a shitty car, but can still register on every app except for the super-upscale one. Maybe a driver hasn't had a background check run, so he can only register for the cheaper sketchy app that most people worried about safety don't use. Doesn't that make more sense than this ridiculous scramble for a "network effect" capable of justifying Uber's valuation?
First off, "reward high performers" and "punish low performers" are equivalent as long as both systems are explained fairly up-front.
But more relevant here is that a percentage change is much more defensible. The worst case scenario is still getting money per mile, but less of it. That's very different from starting off $115 in the hole.
> It's effectively the equivalent of a loyalty card availability in industries of all sorts.
With a loyalty card, you're in full control of how much you purchase through it. It's not dependent on the luck of the draw over a course of a particular week.
It's the combination of a flat fee and the random (uber-controlled, too) nature that makes this deal throw up all sorts of red flags.
> After I tweeted out the pay-to-play screenshot (Fig 1), Uber wrote to me to explain that the screenshot refers to a study in Houston that is part of a research collaboration between Uber and two MIT economists. They added that, “Further, drivers have to opt-in to the offer and there is a disclaimer explaining that if they opt-in they will be part of an academic research project.”
In some ways, the questions that are raised are more about the underlying research ethics (did the authors get IRB review? One presumes, but it's not stated either way in tfa), than about Uber's actual behavior. Or perhaps the question is whether Uber should be participating -- or what conditions Uber is imposing on the study to ensure that the drivers that accept are not going to be harmed substantially.
And they're taking advantage of loss aversion too, not just desire for higher income.
Every driver will automatically make 133% their standard take because they are Gauranteed to get strong surge fares all night. So this is like paying extra to make the sun come up in the morning- that shit was going to happen anyway.
I never missed an event when I paid the ticket.
That said, it's a bit of a gamble. If the driver is available but there are no rides they should perhaps issue a refund.
The UX is a little misleading but I could see this being an effort by Uber to pre-commit drivers as a means of reducing surge pricing.
What makes this potentially unethical (in my mind) is where the price is set. If it's set at a point where Uber's models predict the average benefit to a driver is $0 then this is essentially shifting the risk to their employees.
That happens with Uber consistently. The cab companies hate them with a white hot fire and there are plenty of media outlets who are happy to take a story from a PR flack, especially when it generates page views.
When people complain about surge pricing and then complain about things that mitigate surge pricing, that is pretty good evidence that they just want to complain about something.
> What makes this potentially unethical (in my mind) is where the price is set. If it's set at a point where Uber's models predict the average benefit to a driver is $0 then this is essentially shifting the risk to their employees.
But in that case why would anyone take the deal?
If they did that then the drivers would pay $115 to make back $116 (or $110) and then never do it again because it's not worth the risk.
You should work for any sort of delivery or courier service. This 'worst possible light' is daily business for companies like Papa Johns and others that claim their drivers are merely 'contractors.'
This is also quite illegal - you can not pay to work. It's literal extortion - you have to pay us in order to receive this amount of wage. No, the courts frown upon this.
I suppose "lingots" don't really have a monetary value, but imagine this tactic done in a game where the currency is worth some amount of actual money.
please drink a verification can
I have noticed that drivers of car sharing schemes (where you pay per minute) are a bit eratic at times though. I’m not sure if that’s because they are inexperienced drivers, or just the mentality of “I need to rush, this is costing me money!”.
edit: Googling turned up that this seems to be a thing in at least San Francisco, London, Dublin, Wellington (NZ), Sydney, and a few smaller UK cities.
That aside, if Uber is a profit maximizing entity why would Uber offer this promotion if it isn't worth it for them? I'd be very very sceptical on Uber's attitude towards consumers .. uhmm I mean drivers/"employees".
"As long as your weekly earnings exceed $349 you'll come out ahead!"
I believe you're incorrect or trying to mislead. That sentence implies that there's a strong possibility people can come out "not ahead" or, specifically, lose potential income on the arrangement.
My problem is that Uber has a bunch of venture capital that it can use to entice and entrap vulnerable populations into an exploitative relationship.
It's only "pure capitalism" if one has a shockingly naive view of economics that ignores all of the preconditions that are required for a free market. For example, information symmetry, which is laughably not true given that Uber controls the dispatching with algorithms that are opaque to drivers.
As time approaches infinity, yes, I believe the market will sort out many issues with Uber. In the meantime, I think they have the potential to grind up and spit out many people.
Although I think I am on board with this being a really interesting experiment, even if it might become a morbid fascination it is definitely interesting.
But does lyft have the capacity to take on huge number of uber drivers? Given the gap in revenue numbers it looks unlikely.
If so, then why are they choosing to work for Uber instead of doing whatever they'd be doing if Uber wasn't around? Are you saying that they're stupid or being tricked?
If not, then isn't the world a better place for those people with Uber as an option?
1. http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-lyft-alp...
All internal metrics from what I've heard are rapidly increasing with no signs of stopping. The recent negative PR doesn't really affect their core business and their operations are so well oiled at this point that even not having a CEO for a while really had no major impact.
Look, I get it. Uber is easy to rag on and they've bought themselves no favors through their past actions. But let's look at this objectively. There are many parts of their business that are unprecedented and to pretend we know how this is going to play out for sure is impossibly naive. For example, they even have a 20% stake in China's Didi and that's a huge piece of the puzzle internationally.
Ride sharing is here to stay, and the market will only grow. That much is clear. What Uber’s position in a mature market looks like is what’s unclear.
Consider, maybe, that the worker has a migraine and feels like it'd be unsafe for them to be driving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGwZcR0q6VE
Uber is an old scan. - By Richard D Wolff
We legislated and regulated the old Taxi Cab industry when there was no insurance, bad employees, criminal activities, badly maintained vehicles. And someone can move in and laugh at the laws, and offer it for cheaper (Uber). Its only time until they die, or are regulated themselves.
Sounds like an interesting idea given all the outrage with price surges.
And what would the researchers be studying?
The resemblance doesn't seem to be a coincidence.
