Inefficient transport systems tend to affect the poor. For example, spending an hour commuting to work. Where this is a serious problem, for example India, some jobs even come with a chauffeur. Daily commutes are not Uber's market.
Uber isn't really a job open to the poor. First, you need to be able to afford a decent car, which is right out for the for a lot of people. Second, if you're poor and living paycheck to paycheck, you're unlikely to have the cash to cover any major repairs.
Also, after you deduct vehicle depreciation, insurance, gas, and time driving without a fare, uber doesn't pay all that well per hour.
As far as actual driver statistics go, Uber isn't a good employment alternative for the poor, it's a stopgap measure for the unemployed middle class--more than half of drivers have a college degree and more than half work for less than a year.
Sounds like Uber provides valuable service to the poor who are more likely to work night shift and also less likely to be able to afford the premium for the nicer black cab service during the day.
I'm not aware of anyone running Uber, DoorDash, etc. where that's true. They require some sort of transport which prices the poor out of being able to provide that service in the poorest area I know of where such services are popular (Brazil).
I got a job offer at Uber ATC that was exactly that. Working on logistics for self driving cars. They have an enormous amount of money and they are throwing some of it at the problem. What use is an economy if so many people live in poverty?
Is there evidence that low income people spend less on transportation bc of Uber? It's still hyper expensive compared to public transit and car ownership (if driving daily).
The poor and elderly have some finite amount of money that they have allocated to spend on public transportation, right?
Perhaps it's a bit ideal, but Uber has already successfully penetrated a new customer stratification with Uber Cab...what's to stop it from doing so again -- whether it be via a more cost-effective Uber Cab, an "Uber Rickshaw" service (mostly kidding), or even a government subsidy (an amount to be added to municipal welfare budget, yet still far smaller than the inefficiency cost of a municipal taxi system) to service poorer customers at an affordable price?
You misunderstand the trap that is poverty. Uber isn't "allowing them to make money in bad conditions". Uber has become the condition. There is no getting out of being a Uber driver when your day is spent driving around. No ability to look for other employment related to what you were doing, no ability to get training for another job. Uber thrives on misery.
So, yes, pôle emploi is a better option for many. Note that driving an Uber doesn't even get you qualified for unemployment later on, should you want to stop.
The fact that Uber may charge more during peak hours does not eliminate the fact that the poor and middle class from using buses and subways, basic government supplied transportation, both of which are abundant in Manhattan. I don't really understand, at this point, how Uber could possibly cause social harm with flex pricing. If Uber was the only option, sure, and maybe that is what you're arguing. But I doubt the poor rely on Uber for transportation, and there are still several other options.
There's research out there showing Uber has increased congestion on public roads, and I think also driven up carbon footprint per passenger. In part this is because it's cheaper than it should be. Incentivising less people per vehicle (taxis versus e.g. busses) is bad for society at large.
Uber has no idea if you are poor or not. Even if you want more price segmentation (maybe okay) you certainly can't ask each passenger their income. And Uber isn't indicating if a price is cheap or not, creating a very large disadvantage to the poor as they are unable to accurately judge the expected value of the service before planning their method of transportation somewhere.
Struggling doesn't pay. What where they doing with the productivity before Uber, thats the question. Are you saying they weren't doing anything at all and uber lifted them out of extreme poverty?
This is a really great article digging into the economics of Uber. The unsustainable economics of the industry were a lot more obvious to obvious in markets where Uber had well funded local competitors and ultimate failed like China. When Uber and Didi were competing everyone was using car service to get around. A 45 minute ride could cost 1 us dollar. You had people in jobs making 600 USD a month riding to work in 100k usd Teslas when previously they would take the bus or subway for 15 cents. Everyone was taking advantage of subsidies. When Uber left China, DiDi prices went up a lot of most people stopped using it exclusively and regularly. Taxis in many cities are both faster to hail and cost less money.
The issue I take with the article is that the authors appear to believe in some god-given right to car-based public transit. For example, people what work night shifts at low paying shouldn’t have to pay the surges prices a rich person trying to leave a club would pay. They also believe that adults shouldn’t be able to get themselves into money losing business deals (which is what sounds like is happening for both drivers and Uber equity holders). They also believe that people should not use money raised voluntarily in the market to subsidize services.
It is not clear to me that those beliefs are self evidently true.
As an example: Regulation that subsidies late night taxis for low wage night shift workers economically distorts just like uber drivers that are receiving food stamps. Why is the former okay but the later is not? Both are subsidies to employers who can have a job filled by paying a lower wage than the market would otherwise bear.
reply