It will be interesting to see what happens. One thing I really like about the US federal system is how each jurisdiction applies massive economic interventions. We get to run many experiments and see what happens. I recall that I was curious about the Seattle driver minimum wage law and the results were so interesting to me[0]:
> We find that the minimum pay law raised delivery pay per task, though the increases in base pay per task were partially offset by a substantial reduction in average tips, a major component of delivery pay. At the same time, the policy led to a reduction in the number of tasks completed by highly attached incumbent drivers (but not an increase in exit from delivery work), completely offsetting increased pay per task and leading to zero effect on monthly earnings. We find evidence that drivers experienced more unpaid idle time and longer distances driven between tasks, but find no evidence that drivers reduced their total time working on delivery apps and only limited evidence of switching from delivery to ride-hailing work. Using a simple model of the labor market for platform delivery drivers, we show that our evidence is consistent with free entry of drivers into the delivery market driving down the task-finding rate until expected earnings return to their pre-reform level. These findings highlight the challenges of raising pay in spot markets for tasks where there is free entry of workers.
You may need to retake economics 101 perhaps if you think raising a wage floor has a single predictable outcome in every scenario, which seems to be what you are implying.
It puts varying pressures on other elements in a dynamic system in different ratios and with second order effects that can’t be fully predicted until you “run the experiment.”
You don't know what the definitive predictable identical outcome would be. But you know the effect at the margin.
At the margin, a wage floor will prevent some percent of transactions that would have taken place if a wage floor was not in place. It's not complicated. Some people will benefit, sure, but some commerce just won't take place.
Consider a price floor on selling a used car. Suppose you had a car to sell. Would it make you feel better if there were a law that prevents you from selling your car for less than some amount? Sure maybe without the floor, your car would have sold for less than the floor amount. But would you want a price floor as a seller of a car? How about as a buyer of a car?
Chances are if your car is worth less than the floor, no one will buy your car now. The price floor doesn't magically make your car more valuable, just makes it harder to sell.
You don't actually know that. It's too simple a model. Real world data on minimum wages do not bear it out.
There are more variables than the graphs you get in the first two weeks of Econ 101. If you make it to the end of the semester, or even to the midterm, you'll know that the simple predictions you got on the first quiz were false.
>You may need to retake economics 101 perhaps if you think raising a wage floor has a single predictable outcome in every scenario, which seems to be what you are implying.
>It puts varying pressures on other elements in a dynamic system in different ratios and with second order effects that can’t be fully predicted until you “run the experiment.”
Now replace "raising a wage floor" with "tariffs". Just over a year ago Trump administration cheerleaders were making similar arguments about "dynamic system" and "second order effects" to justify tariffs, predicting that prices might even drop due to [insert handwaving about fx rates].
Do they? It's an interesting question whether resources can be spawned by fiat. I think the only entity capable of doing so is the government, i.e. when it prints money.
> ...leading to zero effect on monthly earnings. We find evidence that drivers experienced more unpaid idle time and longer distances driven between tasks, but find no evidence that drivers reduced their total time working on delivery apps
Same effective income despite more idle time doesn't sound so bad.
It's bad because they're spending the same amount of time "working", but generating less output. It's a loss for customers, who either have to pay more or forego the service altogether.
And it’s a win for the new group of drivers who ostensibly used to have a worse paying job. These dollars probably have more marginal utility for the people delivering doordash than for those consumers. If we want to be technical.
Good for them. These companies appear exploitative and rent-seeking far beyond what the infrastructure they provide suggests is reasonable.
If you're interested, next time you take a car, ask the driver what their end is - you may be surprised how little of the fare they actually take home. That share will only decrease unless they all get on one side of a table.
Not sure why you're being downvoted, this is what I've heard as well. It gets a person cash while they are in transitionary periods of time. There are not a lot of jobs you can get paid for almost immediately- most require startup time, training, applications, etc.
I'm asking this earnestly, do you ever follow up and ask if the added money/income offsets the additional wear and tear on their vehicles? Like do most of those folks you talk to understand the potential trade off? I would think the average rideshare driver understands that generally ("of course the added mileage decreases the value of the car!"), but I wonder how many folks take the time to quantify it, even roughly. Seems like a logical follow-up question when you're interviewing/making small talk with them.
Why are children mining rare minerals in Africa? Why are workers handling toxic waste in the name of recycling in Bangladesh? Surely they can all work from home and leave their jobs if it’s that exploitative
Why do people that need money to live often work for companies that exploit them? Were you born in a vat yesterday or are you unaware that this is the entire modus operandi of capitalism?
Spoken like someone who is financially well off and lives in an extreme bubble. Not totally surprising knowing the site we are on, but quite disgusting how anti-human and anti-worker most commentators are here. Makes sense that the public hates tech workers.
I suggest you talk to some of these workers next time, you don't have to be scared you won't catch the "poor."
These companies seem great to me. Far better than what preceded them anyway. I'm skeptical that they're "rent-seeking" in any meaningful way, or that unions will meaingfully improve the situation.
It doesn't seem to me that ride share drivers should be paid while idling or repositioning. Nor am I in favor of California forcing a minimum wage on ride share drivers. In general, I don't understand how this qualifies as "rent seeking".
I think a lot of people just don't like big tech companies. They're entitled to their opinions but I think they're wrong.
I think truth is that tech companies are really bad at business unless they can scale with free unit economies. Even the unit costs with per seat subscriptions seem insane when you stop and think of the numbers in isolation. Ofc, compared to amount they pay their employees they are cheap, but in other places and industries it looks way overpriced.
R&D is not cheap and similarly executive comp is not cheap. They appear to have made a net income of 1.5 B last year (2025), but if. you look at exec comp, the top 5 execs took in 100 M. If you check all their creamy layer, it is likely they spent a quarter billion in stuff that did not need to be paid if all you had were private taxies :) with an open source app // I exaggerate of course since you need some servers to coordinate this, just pointing out where money goes. If someone could run and popularize an open ride platform, that quarter billion would go somewhere else, maybe to the drivers, maybe to the riders.
Intermediation and Uber style network effects aren't long for this world.
Personal agents will search every app for the lowest fare, when in the past the apps had a moat due to the economic frictions involved in sampling more than one app. Uber is also ripe for vibe coding.
Won't be much consolation to drivers as they'll get automated soon after probably.
I don't think all software companies are in imminent danger but Uber does seem particularly vulnerable.
100M on 52 billion revenue is 0.2%.
Net income of 1.5 billion is about 3% of revenue.
> If someone could run and popularize an open ride platform, that quarter billion would go somewhere else, maybe to the drivers, maybe to the riders.
So if you found an equally effective management team that worked for free, you would save the customer about 1% at checkout. That is a tiny benefit, even granting the massive assumption.
Those numbers suggest a competitive environment with small profits, not an abusive monoply exploiting it's position.
They would make plenty of money if they went in to maintenance mode and just kept the lights on development-wise instead of pouring billions into R&D each year.
There's probably a big opportunity in the startup world for building businesses that have an end goal. Like a TV show that has a whole story to tell and then stops... a business that has an entire development plan which finishes and at the end you have a stable business that stops adding features, cuts development costs to maintenance, and just exists.
Like I don't need my taxi app to change, we're good, you can just be done making new stuff.
It hurts so much that our system makes that concept as impossible at scale as landing a ship on Venus with 10,000 people and starting a space colony complete with all the amenities of home.
Yours is a pretty normal idea for nearly any business before 100 years ago, plus still the way all small businesses with 1 owner generally work (they call it a “Lifestyle business” today). But any public company that just said “Yeah we basically just print $400 million in profit every year, and have no plans to grow that, nor to change anything besides doing maintenance” gets the kind of treatment Southwest just did: taken over by the enshittification engineers and destroyed. Everything must have infinite growth!!
So they burnt money and have nothing to show for it? Why do we let these companies play around with billions of dollars while we lack universal childcare or medicare for all?
Complete looney toons over here if you think this is at all acceptable. I bet the workers would figure out a better use of the budget than the executives at this rate too.
I think it's going to take a act of Congress to make this happen. We could literally legislate our way out of enshitification but where's the huge amount of money in that?
Some forms of enshitification already feel a lot like dumping to me. I wonder why existing consumer protection laws don’t cover it already in some cases.
Far be it from me to defend Uber of all things, but pre-rideshares, the taxi companies were - and still are - much, much worse.
I've begun to realize we now live in a time where there are a lot of adults who are too young to remember the bad old days. Are you one of those people? Because the taxi companies absolutely made their bed. Be careful of rose-colored glasses.
Taxi companies in most cities were exploitive oligarchies - it was textbook regulatory capture. Often their workers weren't any better off in terms of lopsided deals. And the customer experience sucked sooo bad. The smells, the illegal "cash only" bait and switch, the runarounds. I remember. I was there, Gandalf. And I'll take Uber any day over going back to the old system.
The original impetus was more about banning robotaxis in Boston/MA than it is about the actual bargaining, from what I've heard. Just as the teamsters tried to ban cars to protect horse carriage drivers (that's what teamsters were, that's why they're called teamsters), they're back to ban the next mode of transportation.
If you were at any of the city council meetings where this topic was brought up it was a circus show with people repeating 'boston is a union town' and grilling waymo execs.
Do you have a citation for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (today's "Teamsters") ever trying to ban automobiles? That doesn't really make sense to me chronologically.
It is not mentioned in "Fighting Traffic", which would be quite an oversight!
No idea about them trying to ban automobiles, but oil pipelines were invented to get around their friction. From _The Prize_, referencing the mid-1800s:
"From the first discoveries, teamsters, lashing their horses, had clogged the roads of the Oil Regions with their loads of barrels. They were more than just a physical bottleneck. Holding a monopoly position, they charged exorbitant rates; it cost more to move a barrel over a few miles of muddy road to a railway stop than to transport it by rail from western Pennsylvania all the way to New York. The teamsters’ stranglehold on transportation led to an ingenious effort to develop an alternative—transportation by pipeline."
But based on pure physics alone it seems obvious that moving single truckloads of cargo over several miles of muddy road would be more difficult (and expensive) than moving dozens of loads simultaneously by rail over a significantly longer distance? That’s like the point of trains. How is this an indictment of teamsters?
What conclusion do you think I was drawing? I was just sharing an interesting quote relevant to the thread.
Oil was solely a lighting product at this point. The Teamsters were clearly not thinking 70 years into the future to stop automobiles. But I think the "monopoly" part of the quote is somewhat germain, even if it's just opinion of the author.
Same for the longshoremen union, much is still done by hand whereas in other countries the shipping infrastructure is largely automated and much more efficient.
The problem with US ports being slow isn’t the longshoremen or the lack of automation, it’s the ports themselves.
This has been studied and the main takeaway is that automated terminals are generally not more productive than conventional ones *once you control for things like terminal layout, cargo patterns, rail/truck integration, and geography.*
A lot of the “look at Rotterdam/Singapore/Shanghai” comparisons are misleading because those are purpose-built megaterminals with entirely different infrastructure and logistics networks.
US ports have different constraints (that have nothing to do with longshoremen) that make the specific automations more common in foreign ports less effective and sometimes counter effective here.
That’s not to say there aren’t automation improvements that could be made or Longshoremen labor is currently at some perfect optimal productivity equilibrium with automation, but it’s not a simple we need automation and they are in the way stopping it scenario.
Automation can certainly reduce some labor costs and improve yard density, but the idea that US ports are uniquely inefficient because dockworkers are manually moving containers around is mostly political rhetoric, not what the actual studies by people designing and running ports say.
I think it is fascinating that HN thinks it is bad for workers in other professions to protest against things that take away their earning abilities, and then proceed to protest against things that take away the earning abilities of tech workers — AI, immigration, outsourcing, non necessary layoffs, you name it.
Doesn’t appear they were successful, seems self driving taxis are still allowed. From my understanding, they have better bargaining rights for companies intending to switch to automation, but nothing preventing a scrappy upstart with only driverless taxis from coming in and eating their lunch.
So a random poster makes an assertion and rather than Google it and verify it yourself you throw out a request for another random poster to concur? And that concurrence you will take at face value and then believe the original assertion?
I think it's reasonable to request the person making the assertion to back it up. It's not on the audience to either only debunk or accept the assertion. It can just be rejected.
Why is an anodyne factual claim an “extraordinary claim”? What makes that particular claim extraordinary? They didn’t claim to have discovered perpetual motion or something you can’t prove or disprove yourself, just shared a historical fact you can easily just check up on if you choose not to believe them.
>Why is an anodyne factual claim an “extraordinary claim”? What makes that particular claim extraordinary?
FWIW I tried to get AI to substantiate it and came up empty. Maybe it's not as "extraordinary" as "Obama was a reptilian alien" or whatever, but for everything else what counts as "extraordinary" depends on your prejudices, I suppose. Regardless of whether it's "extraordinary" or not, it's definitely not common knowledge and needs to be substantiated rather than asserted without evidence.
Unions are great and all, but they cannot solve all problems purely by maximizing their demands. If the resulting business (with the unions and the costs of satisfying them) is no longer able to offer a compelling marketplace offering then all the unions accomplish is destroy their own jobs. This is actually nuanced (meaning there is probably an ideal balance where both parties can enjoy benefits, but too far in either direction is either toxic to the workers or kills the business) but unfortunately the discussion is generally conducted with this kind of flippant emotional appeal. I think that’s why unions are in massive decline. A ton of unionized jobs died because the businesses couldn’t compete, and businesses work to avoid unions at all costs because of that reputation. A lose-lose for workers.
A key thing to understand about unions is that they're a lot of effort to set up and manage, and the time spent on it is in addition to your normal work hours. They don't just spring up out of nowhere.
If you're looking at a union there's a specific reason it formed, and probably a specific person in management behind that reason.
> A lose-lose for workers.
There's an ancient saying in labor: "the only thing worse than a union is no union."
When owners try to lock down industries with government restrictions, we also oppose that. In this case, society as a whole is harmed by what the unions are demanding. It means everybody, including other workers, get less affordable goods and services. Greater affordability through automation is the sole means by which wages and purchasing power increase over time.
Over the past two years, I have found Uber and Lyft rides getting more expensive than taxis in several large US cities, including Boston, Chicago, NY, and LA. Taxis are now 10-50% cheaper in my experience.
When I do take Uber and Lyft rides, I ask the drivers how much they're getting paid, and the amounts they tell me are often 30% to 60% less than what I paid, which is a bit shocking to me.
At some point, Uber and Lyft stopped being service providers that charged riders a fee for value provided. They have become market makers that squeeze as much trading profit as possible by arbitraging the prices riders are willing to pay and the rates drivers are willing to accept. I imagine they are capturing most of the value in each ride today. It's perfectly legal, but let's call what it is.
I'm not surprised about the ride-share driver union.
> At some point, Uber and Lyft stopped being service providers that charged riders a fee for value provided.
They were only ever this for about 30 seconds between when they were dumping investor cash to sell dollars for 75¢, and when they realized finally that no one even knew what a taxi was anymore, or how to find one. What literally every "cynic" said would happen.
I'm going to shout out Empower, it's a service like Uber that charges a flat fee to the driver every month, around 50 bucks, without taking any percentage fees, meaning both the riders save much more and drivers make much more, especially if they drive a lot.
Their rationale is that it should be more like hiring a contractor for your house, a platform wouldn't get a cut of the cost of your grass cutter so why should drivers be any different?
So far I haven't had any issues, although I did hear of some problems and controversies they have.
Namma Yatri is doing the same in India. Flat fee and your fare instantly goes to the drivers wallet. Previously, drivers at late night ask me to cancel the ride and hand over cash so they can buy petrol, Uber takes a long time to settle. Seems Uber responded to compete with them and maybe increased subsidy for riders.
I always wonder what Uber is doing with all that money. I know a former employee talked about the vast number of screens it has [0] but still, if these sorts of companies can beat them then I'm not sure what the Uber value proposition is, especially as it gets more expensive.
No doubt good for them, but I am curious how this is realistically going to work.
The barrier of entry to get new non-union drivers for Lyft and Uber is very low. If a strike does happen I can't imagine it would be hard for them to fairly quickly get new drivers, especially with the possibility of higher fairs due to high demand while it is sorted out. I have to imagine they would be able to get drivers far faster than most other situations with strikes.
I wonder if Uber and Lyft would even try to partner with gocurb or another app to funnel riders directly to taxies.
Not saying a union is a bad thing, I just wonder in this particular case how well it is realistically going to work out. Guess we will see.
> No doubt good for them, but I am curious how this is realistically going to work.
Seems like kind of a pilot-program nationwide TBH. The article links to another article last year about an MA ballot measure which made it possible for gig-work drivers to unionize in the first place (since independent contractors aren't covered by the NLRB at a federal level). It seems that the state labor board intends to sponsor the negotiation process, and per the ballot measure text would be responsible for figuring out what to do if negotiations broke down. Summary of the question is here, if you're interested (full text of the law is linked there): https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/publications...
What are you basing these guesses on? Workforce is pretty difficult to find on basically anything as far as I know.
You might have people that want to drive taxis but they would still have to get used to the streets, how the app works etc. etc. which can significantly degrade service quality.
The number of people with cars that might be willing to do some side work for some extra money?
It isn't like other jobs that have resumes and (possibly) long interview processes.
From what I can find we are talking a few days without talking to anyone and you are driving. Throw in Uber and Lyft doing an advertising campaign with incentives to start driving, I don't see any reason they could not have a potential large amount of drivers fairly quickly.
Maybe it won't be at ideal hours, maybe it will still be hit or miss, but there are a lot of drivers out there. Just due to the very nature of this being gig work.
All they really need to just ignore the union's demands is to be able to sign up enough drivers to out last the members not making money. Getting used to driving the streets and everything is up to the drivers, not uber or lyft. I am just reluctant to think it will actually work and the drivers won't cave. Trying to pass laws would be a more concrete fix.
The barrier of entry is simply owning a car. If you were offered $10,000 to drive someone for 20 minutes you'd likely do it. From there, it's just up to an algorithm to find the right number.
If someone offered me $10,000 to drive them 20 minutes then I would assume that they're transporting contraband or fleeing from law enforcement. Sometimes high prices are a signal that something is badly wrong with the deal.
For most cities, "get used to the streets" means "use GPS". They could be earning money the same day they sign up.
That puts the barrier to entry on the same level as grocery store workers. Granted, those too can successfully unionize; I agree that such strikes are only toothless when unemployment is high.
It's about time -- I hope rideshare drivers unionize in California as well. A UC Berkeley Labor Center study (2024) found rideshare drivers take home $7.12 per hour in median net hourly earnings before tips, which is less than half of California's $16 minimum wage at the time. https://inequality.org/article/exposing-the-rideshare-indust...
Has nothing to do with what time it is. It was the voters voting. CA could do the exact same thing. Waiting for it to happen is a great way for it to never happen.
Unions are great when they are fighting for worker's rights by demanding things like businesses sharing their profits with the workers who make it for them, more vacation time, required investments in safety, and protecting workers from getting fired for having the wrong skin color.
But when they get into the business of slowing down technology adoption to protect workers, that's when they get into the territory of giving unions a bad name. Getting together to lobby the government to make systemic changes to help displaced workers would be great, but it seems in this case they are trying to get government to just ban technology that replaces them.
> But when they get into the business of slowing down technology adoption to protect workers, that's when they get into the territory of giving unions a bad name.
I would consider the emputus more on companies to not roll out new technology in a way that harms workers.
Why shouldn't workers also lobby the government to help their material needs? Are only corporations entitled to welfare now?
There's also little benefit in discussing how "useful" this technology actually is if all the benefits are continually being captured by 1% of the population.
From an admittedly selfish point of view, I also don't mind this. I don't use rideshare anymore. I use my self-driving cars when I'm at home, use private vans to go to the airport, or rent a self-driving car when I'm traveling. Uber/Lyft were becoming too expensive for the low quality of service and I'd rather just pay for better quality at this point. They also drive terribly and make the road less safe for other drivers and pedestrians.
It's close and it will happen. In my Tesla it already drives itself nearly 100% of the time through city streets, highways, rush hour traffic, complex situations (hardware 4 Teslas are amazing). I also have a Toyota truck and it feels like such a downgrade to drive without self driving anymore. It's only a matter of time before Tesla and others perfect self driving (as Waymo nearly has done) and we no longer have human driven taxis/ubers/lyfts and regular drivers are also on self driving. It will save time, lives and reduce road rage.
It's not close at all. Not where it snows in winter. This union will last at least a decade. Waymo and Tesla claim to be coming for northern states but ice and snow tell a very different story. You simply can't go FSD in a snowstorm.
So far I've been impressed enough with the HW4 Teslas that I haven't had them do anything that I had to intervene to correct or prevent. It's pretty amazing at how well it handles all kinds of things - construction, weird merges, road debris. This morning, there was a tire in the middle of the road, which caused traffic ahead of me to slam to a halt. Mine had to brake hard enough that ABS engaged, and then navigated around the tire. I was impressed.
It doesn’t have to be completely unsupervised for the driver to realize huge improvements in quality of life. I don’t even notice when people drive slow or cut me off. I’m just relaxing, fiddling with the music or talking to my family. And managing two toddlers is a lot easier when my brain doesn’t have to run a constant background job.
I do hope that unsupervised comes soon though. The tech is there, or at least far enough that I consider it better than my own driving. The hurdle is regulatory now.
If you're distracted and not actively monitoring an SAE Level 2 autonomous system then you're a hazard to yourself and others. Don't do that. You need to be ready to actively intervene with zero advance notice.
You're technically correct of course, but the fact of the matter is every driver gets distracted/tired and having the FSD safety net only makes things safer, assuming you don't go out of your way to get distracted. I've lost count of the times I looked over at a "dumb" car being driven by someone on their phone. Would you rather that person be in a Tesla using FSD or in their Subaru Crosstrek?
Yeah, and that would disrupt Uber badly in the area.
In the article it mentions that this is a union of 70,000 independent contractors. I imagine that it would be very bad for Uber if they all decided not to drive simultaneously.
With collective organization, the union has a better chance to coordinate strikes and other collective action, as well as bargain for pay collectively rather than in a one to many relationship.
Uber could always find more people to drive cars though - it’s not a rare skill. It’s also the reason you don’t see a lot of fast food unions. If you can train a new employee in a week there’s a limit to the (union) demands it makes sense to comply with. Union shop grocery stores are one exception: a rare holdout of an earlier era.
But anyway, even though Uber might lose some sales in the short term while they build up more drivers, if the union’s demands would make the rides barely profitable (or where Uber loses money) then that’s not really an actual loss.
Not to mention it’s the drivers who still pay depreciation and insurance cost of their cars whether or not they drive.
Similar to another commenter I don’t really care or have a dog in this race, I’m just commenting on the actors and what their relative advantages are.
I wonder how much Uber/Lyft actually loses when nobody drives vs loses opportunity. A big part of union negotiating strength is how large the costs of doing nothing (like leases or contract delivery terms) is but I honestly have no clue how that works for Uber/Lyft (and it may vary a lot by region depending what Uber/Lyft are required to do in each area).
Eh, the supply of drivers isn't as fungible as you might think. Insurance is quite expensive, that's what keeps me from doing it from time to time. That and I have zero desire to have to deal with the public.
> Yeah, and that would disrupt Uber badly in the area.
So what? Uber operates all over the world, losing some revenue (maybe not even profit) in one region is a loss they can eat. A Taxi company couldn't eat this kind of loss and would be forced to negotiate. Uber though? They can tough it out if it's advantageous to them.
This is the inevitable result of replacing local taxi monopolies or cartels with a multinational "tech" duopoly.
The end of driving as a profession is going to hit the economy hard. Teamsters may have the organizational strength and political influence to protect themselves. But they only represent ~20% of US truck drivers and none of the other ~3 million people who drive for a living in this country.
I don't see either American labor or American government being anywhere near strong enough or capable enough to facilitate a soft landing.
I'm sure it would be much easier to solve with extra $10 trillion a year, which is pocket money compared to what goes into adtech, sloptech, attacking Iran and similar endeavors.
> The end of driving as a profession is going to hit the economy hard.
They should just learn to code! /s
> I don't see either American labor or American government being anywhere near strong enough or capable enough to facilitate a soft landing.
More seriously, I agree with this, but the problems are going to extend way beyond just transportation workers.
These are problems we could theoretically find solutions for, but we're headed into it at warp speed with an already absolutely broken political system and massive levels of wealth inequality.
I find it far more likely that the solution to this all ends up being chaos and bloodshed rather than properly managed preventive policy changes.
Society is fragile and operates in tension, a shared delusion like a currency. If workers burn down every autonomous truck on the road, there simply is not enough law enforcement to prevent them from doing so. There are only 1 million US soliders on US soil [1], there are 100 million workers. If they can't solve cargo theft incurring ~$35B/year in losses, how would they solve this? There are millions of trucks on US roads at any one time.
> I don't see either American labor or American government being anywhere near strong enough or capable enough to facilitate a soft landing.
Certainly not yet, but a resolution will present itself. The quality of which is to be determined of course.
(not advocating either way, simply enumerating the risk model; I am privileged that my day job is to get paid to think like a threat actor across various verticals and model accordingly)
This is of course a dangerous suggestion, but also, never in the history of the world has the destruction of a technology that was replacing workers ever turned out well for the workers. At best it briefly delayed adoption.
When has it worked out for workers? Genuine question. If its not offshoring manufacturing (China before, South East Asia today) and services (India primarily), its importing labor to depress wages and keep workers in economic peril (there are approximately 720,000 to 750,000 foreign-born truck drivers in the United States, representing about 18% to 20% of the total commercial driving workforce, as of this comment) to encourage compliance with the status quo [1] [2].
If you work with workers so that they will have a safe landing through a just transition, such that longshoreman experienced when the cargo container revolutionized shipping [3] [4], you might get worker buy in. If you say you will with no evidence you will follow through, you will not get buy in, and whatever is the downstream impact of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of workers becoming redundant rapidly without a safety net.
Despite hope not being a strategy, as an observer, I hope that policymakers make a choice that leads to a net favorable outcome. If they do not, that is a choice.
That is possible, but unfortunately I think more realistic scenario is that instead of raising up and losing their chains, the masses will get brainwashed by algorithms and end up convinced it is the minorities fault or something.
Laziness on my part, my apologies, pick your system vulnerability to your preferences. Physical disablement, some flavor of cyber RCE, sensor spoofing or blinding, etc. Could be as easy as slowing in front of the vehicle to force it to a stop.
It will likely play out exactly like California’s disastrous special $20/hr fast food minimum wage[1]: a near immediate reduction in the number of people employed. They replaced a couple of $20/hr workers that were present taking orders with $3000 kiosks that run for $0.10/hour of electricity. And chains also closed locations whose fiscal viability were already close to the line, since “the line” jumped.
I don’t really blame the drivers for trying, I just think it’s probably not a viable long-term career, unfortunately.
[1] except of course if you’re Panera, coincidentally owned by a Newsom friend/donor. Good ol’ Bake-bread-on-premises exception!
The fast-food worker being replaced by a kiosk is inevitable and not limited to California, but even the kiosk is mostly transitory and destined to be largely replaced by a phone app.
I'm not sure. It may be cheaper for Uber to offload the insurance, depreciation and maintensnce of the vehicles to their human driver/owners, than for Uber to own, lease, and maintain autonomous cars. I haven't seen any analysis of that idea (not that I've looked very hard).
It will be interesting to see what happens. One thing I really like about the US federal system is how each jurisdiction applies massive economic interventions. We get to run many experiments and see what happens. I recall that I was curious about the Seattle driver minimum wage law and the results were so interesting to me[0]:
> We find that the minimum pay law raised delivery pay per task, though the increases in base pay per task were partially offset by a substantial reduction in average tips, a major component of delivery pay. At the same time, the policy led to a reduction in the number of tasks completed by highly attached incumbent drivers (but not an increase in exit from delivery work), completely offsetting increased pay per task and leading to zero effect on monthly earnings. We find evidence that drivers experienced more unpaid idle time and longer distances driven between tasks, but find no evidence that drivers reduced their total time working on delivery apps and only limited evidence of switching from delivery to ride-hailing work. Using a simple model of the labor market for platform delivery drivers, we show that our evidence is consistent with free entry of drivers into the delivery market driving down the task-finding rate until expected earnings return to their pre-reform level. These findings highlight the challenges of raising pay in spot markets for tasks where there is free entry of workers.
0: https://www.nber.org/papers/w34545
Economics 101 happens. I don't think we need yet another example of the obvious thing happening.
I have no idea why people keep talking about raising pay as if they were in a video game where resources just spawn out of thin air
You may need to retake economics 101 perhaps if you think raising a wage floor has a single predictable outcome in every scenario, which seems to be what you are implying.
It puts varying pressures on other elements in a dynamic system in different ratios and with second order effects that can’t be fully predicted until you “run the experiment.”
You don't know what the definitive predictable identical outcome would be. But you know the effect at the margin.
At the margin, a wage floor will prevent some percent of transactions that would have taken place if a wage floor was not in place. It's not complicated. Some people will benefit, sure, but some commerce just won't take place.
Consider a price floor on selling a used car. Suppose you had a car to sell. Would it make you feel better if there were a law that prevents you from selling your car for less than some amount? Sure maybe without the floor, your car would have sold for less than the floor amount. But would you want a price floor as a seller of a car? How about as a buyer of a car?
Chances are if your car is worth less than the floor, no one will buy your car now. The price floor doesn't magically make your car more valuable, just makes it harder to sell.
You don't actually know that. It's too simple a model. Real world data on minimum wages do not bear it out.
There are more variables than the graphs you get in the first two weeks of Econ 101. If you make it to the end of the semester, or even to the midterm, you'll know that the simple predictions you got on the first quiz were false.
>You may need to retake economics 101 perhaps if you think raising a wage floor has a single predictable outcome in every scenario, which seems to be what you are implying.
>It puts varying pressures on other elements in a dynamic system in different ratios and with second order effects that can’t be fully predicted until you “run the experiment.”
Now replace "raising a wage floor" with "tariffs". Just over a year ago Trump administration cheerleaders were making similar arguments about "dynamic system" and "second order effects" to justify tariffs, predicting that prices might even drop due to [insert handwaving about fx rates].
Resources have a way of spawning for CEOs, why not for minimum wage workers?
Do they? It's an interesting question whether resources can be spawned by fiat. I think the only entity capable of doing so is the government, i.e. when it prints money.
> ...leading to zero effect on monthly earnings. We find evidence that drivers experienced more unpaid idle time and longer distances driven between tasks, but find no evidence that drivers reduced their total time working on delivery apps
Same effective income despite more idle time doesn't sound so bad.
It's bad because they're spending the same amount of time "working", but generating less output. It's a loss for customers, who either have to pay more or forego the service altogether.
And it’s a win for the new group of drivers who ostensibly used to have a worse paying job. These dollars probably have more marginal utility for the people delivering doordash than for those consumers. If we want to be technical.
You do realize these are humans and not machines right?
No, we're talking economics here - picture a spherical human in a perfect marketplace
Good for them. These companies appear exploitative and rent-seeking far beyond what the infrastructure they provide suggests is reasonable.
If you're interested, next time you take a car, ask the driver what their end is - you may be surprised how little of the fare they actually take home. That share will only decrease unless they all get on one side of a table.
if all these drivers are getting horribly exploited why are they doing it?
There's no better option on the table? Desperate people have low labor elasticity, kind of definitionally.
It's a bit like a payday loan — the drivers need money _today_ and effectively borrow against the depreciation of their vehicle.
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/jle/vol59/iss1/8/
Banning payday loans tends to shift borrowers to worse forms of credit.
One imagines worsening the economics of ride share jobs will do the same.
Not sure why you're being downvoted, this is what I've heard as well. It gets a person cash while they are in transitionary periods of time. There are not a lot of jobs you can get paid for almost immediately- most require startup time, training, applications, etc.
that sounds like a benefit, not abuse.
All because you’re being exploited doesn’t mean you can’t voice your want to change things.
Some of these workers might find that the only gig that they can rely on is ride share for various reasons.
Various reasons necessarily include the successful business model of the ride share companies.
You might ask the same about any exploitive relation.
Why is there prostitution?
Why are slaves doing work for their masters?
Why are children going through our garbage in some distant country, if they hardly earn enough to eat?
i dont think the choice between driving Uber and working at Walmart is the same as being a slave or dying.
True, they are not the same. But they probably feel similarly coerced into accepting an unfair deal.
So yeah, the comparisons are hyperboles, but I totally feel why they're upset and hope collective bargaining helps better their situation.
Because the alternative is being homeless.
Food and shelter?
To pay for tomorrow perhaps.
what a revealing question. why don't you ask one next time you're in a car?
I have, they mostly say they enjoy it, they can work when they want, scale up when they need more money, scale down when they dont, decent money etc.
flexible, supplemental income.
I'm asking this earnestly, do you ever follow up and ask if the added money/income offsets the additional wear and tear on their vehicles? Like do most of those folks you talk to understand the potential trade off? I would think the average rideshare driver understands that generally ("of course the added mileage decreases the value of the car!"), but I wonder how many folks take the time to quantify it, even roughly. Seems like a logical follow-up question when you're interviewing/making small talk with them.
no i respect people's intelligence enough to assume they wouldn't be working all day for $0
white savior complex is rampant in these threads. Insisting they know better for someone else.
Why are children mining rare minerals in Africa? Why are workers handling toxic waste in the name of recycling in Bangladesh? Surely they can all work from home and leave their jobs if it’s that exploitative
Surely this is a dark joke.
People need to eat, dude.
Why do people that need money to live often work for companies that exploit them? Were you born in a vat yesterday or are you unaware that this is the entire modus operandi of capitalism?
i dont think selling labor for money is inherently exploitative. its a two sided voluntary exchange.
Spoken like someone who is financially well off and lives in an extreme bubble. Not totally surprising knowing the site we are on, but quite disgusting how anti-human and anti-worker most commentators are here. Makes sense that the public hates tech workers.
I suggest you talk to some of these workers next time, you don't have to be scared you won't catch the "poor."
I’d guess because most don’t correctly account for wear and tear and depreciation of their car when they do their mental profit calculation.
It's definitely not because of this. They are not stupid.
right, so the real answer is that all these poor immigrants are too stupid to realize they are losing money. lovely class solidarity there.
These companies seem great to me. Far better than what preceded them anyway. I'm skeptical that they're "rent-seeking" in any meaningful way, or that unions will meaingfully improve the situation.
I suggest reading into rideshare wages some. https://inequality.org/article/exposing-the-rideshare-indust...
I don't find this convincing.
It doesn't seem to me that ride share drivers should be paid while idling or repositioning. Nor am I in favor of California forcing a minimum wage on ride share drivers. In general, I don't understand how this qualifies as "rent seeking".
I think a lot of people just don't like big tech companies. They're entitled to their opinions but I think they're wrong.
Less "rent seeking", more "your business model only makes sense without investors attached."
it’s very confusing why uber makes so little profit given hire big their cut of every ride seemingly is.
I think truth is that tech companies are really bad at business unless they can scale with free unit economies. Even the unit costs with per seat subscriptions seem insane when you stop and think of the numbers in isolation. Ofc, compared to amount they pay their employees they are cheap, but in other places and industries it looks way overpriced.
R&D is not cheap and similarly executive comp is not cheap. They appear to have made a net income of 1.5 B last year (2025), but if. you look at exec comp, the top 5 execs took in 100 M. If you check all their creamy layer, it is likely they spent a quarter billion in stuff that did not need to be paid if all you had were private taxies :) with an open source app // I exaggerate of course since you need some servers to coordinate this, just pointing out where money goes. If someone could run and popularize an open ride platform, that quarter billion would go somewhere else, maybe to the drivers, maybe to the riders.
Intermediation and Uber style network effects aren't long for this world.
Personal agents will search every app for the lowest fare, when in the past the apps had a moat due to the economic frictions involved in sampling more than one app. Uber is also ripe for vibe coding.
Won't be much consolation to drivers as they'll get automated soon after probably.
I don't think all software companies are in imminent danger but Uber does seem particularly vulnerable.
100M on 52 billion revenue is 0.2%. Net income of 1.5 billion is about 3% of revenue.
> If someone could run and popularize an open ride platform, that quarter billion would go somewhere else, maybe to the drivers, maybe to the riders.
So if you found an equally effective management team that worked for free, you would save the customer about 1% at checkout. That is a tiny benefit, even granting the massive assumption.
Those numbers suggest a competitive environment with small profits, not an abusive monoply exploiting it's position.
They would make plenty of money if they went in to maintenance mode and just kept the lights on development-wise instead of pouring billions into R&D each year.
There's probably a big opportunity in the startup world for building businesses that have an end goal. Like a TV show that has a whole story to tell and then stops... a business that has an entire development plan which finishes and at the end you have a stable business that stops adding features, cuts development costs to maintenance, and just exists.
Like I don't need my taxi app to change, we're good, you can just be done making new stuff.
There's even more money to be made selling a false promise of infinite growth, dumping your bags, and riding off into the sunset.
It hurts so much that our system makes that concept as impossible at scale as landing a ship on Venus with 10,000 people and starting a space colony complete with all the amenities of home.
Yours is a pretty normal idea for nearly any business before 100 years ago, plus still the way all small businesses with 1 owner generally work (they call it a “Lifestyle business” today). But any public company that just said “Yeah we basically just print $400 million in profit every year, and have no plans to grow that, nor to change anything besides doing maintenance” gets the kind of treatment Southwest just did: taken over by the enshittification engineers and destroyed. Everything must have infinite growth!!
Uber is a frigging service for calling a taxi, how much "R&D" does a mobile app connected to a database need?
Your local taxi company probably has a white-labelled app - that’s the obvious point of comparison.
For the companies in my areas, their apps feel kinda clunky, but are generally fully-functional, and don’t contain ads like the Uber app.
Brainstorming new fees to add on to their services that the drivers don’t get a cut of takes up a few billion a year I would imagine.
They spent billions and billions on trying to make self-driving a thing.
So they burnt money and have nothing to show for it? Why do we let these companies play around with billions of dollars while we lack universal childcare or medicare for all?
Complete looney toons over here if you think this is at all acceptable. I bet the workers would figure out a better use of the budget than the executives at this rate too.
I think it's going to take a act of Congress to make this happen. We could literally legislate our way out of enshitification but where's the huge amount of money in that?
Some forms of enshitification already feel a lot like dumping to me. I wonder why existing consumer protection laws don’t cover it already in some cases.
We replaced small, local businesses (taxi companies) with a large multinational duopoly. Another example of tech "democratizing" something.
Far be it from me to defend Uber of all things, but pre-rideshares, the taxi companies were - and still are - much, much worse.
I've begun to realize we now live in a time where there are a lot of adults who are too young to remember the bad old days. Are you one of those people? Because the taxi companies absolutely made their bed. Be careful of rose-colored glasses.
Taxi companies in most cities were exploitive oligarchies - it was textbook regulatory capture. Often their workers weren't any better off in terms of lopsided deals. And the customer experience sucked sooo bad. The smells, the illegal "cash only" bait and switch, the runarounds. I remember. I was there, Gandalf. And I'll take Uber any day over going back to the old system.
I'm sorry, but those "small local" taxi companies were rife with discrimination and horrible user experiences. "Small" is not inherently better.
Indeed. My worst Uber experience is still better than 90% of the taxi rides I've had.
The original impetus was more about banning robotaxis in Boston/MA than it is about the actual bargaining, from what I've heard. Just as the teamsters tried to ban cars to protect horse carriage drivers (that's what teamsters were, that's why they're called teamsters), they're back to ban the next mode of transportation.
If you were at any of the city council meetings where this topic was brought up it was a circus show with people repeating 'boston is a union town' and grilling waymo execs.
Do you have a citation for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (today's "Teamsters") ever trying to ban automobiles? That doesn't really make sense to me chronologically.
It is not mentioned in "Fighting Traffic", which would be quite an oversight!
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262516129/fighting-traffic/
No idea about them trying to ban automobiles, but oil pipelines were invented to get around their friction. From _The Prize_, referencing the mid-1800s:
"From the first discoveries, teamsters, lashing their horses, had clogged the roads of the Oil Regions with their loads of barrels. They were more than just a physical bottleneck. Holding a monopoly position, they charged exorbitant rates; it cost more to move a barrel over a few miles of muddy road to a railway stop than to transport it by rail from western Pennsylvania all the way to New York. The teamsters’ stranglehold on transportation led to an ingenious effort to develop an alternative—transportation by pipeline."
But based on pure physics alone it seems obvious that moving single truckloads of cargo over several miles of muddy road would be more difficult (and expensive) than moving dozens of loads simultaneously by rail over a significantly longer distance? That’s like the point of trains. How is this an indictment of teamsters?
Yeah, the post you're responding to quotes "The Prize" (an excellent book), but draws a conclusion that the quote doesn't support.
Interestingly, the Teamsters (IBT) represents a lot of oil pipeline workers today.
https://teamster.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/6617pipeline...
What conclusion do you think I was drawing? I was just sharing an interesting quote relevant to the thread.
Oil was solely a lighting product at this point. The Teamsters were clearly not thinking 70 years into the future to stop automobiles. But I think the "monopoly" part of the quote is somewhat germain, even if it's just opinion of the author.
They don’t have a citation because they made it up.
Same for the longshoremen union, much is still done by hand whereas in other countries the shipping infrastructure is largely automated and much more efficient.
The problem with US ports being slow isn’t the longshoremen or the lack of automation, it’s the ports themselves.
This has been studied and the main takeaway is that automated terminals are generally not more productive than conventional ones *once you control for things like terminal layout, cargo patterns, rail/truck integration, and geography.*
A lot of the “look at Rotterdam/Singapore/Shanghai” comparisons are misleading because those are purpose-built megaterminals with entirely different infrastructure and logistics networks.
US ports have different constraints (that have nothing to do with longshoremen) that make the specific automations more common in foreign ports less effective and sometimes counter effective here.
That’s not to say there aren’t automation improvements that could be made or Longshoremen labor is currently at some perfect optimal productivity equilibrium with automation, but it’s not a simple we need automation and they are in the way stopping it scenario.
Automation can certainly reduce some labor costs and improve yard density, but the idea that US ports are uniquely inefficient because dockworkers are manually moving containers around is mostly political rhetoric, not what the actual studies by people designing and running ports say.
Some reading: https://www.construction-physics.com/p/do-us-ports-need-more...
https://www.gao.gov/assets/d24106498.pdf
https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/container-...
Just dropping here because it's an excellent read on US port automation
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/do-us-ports-need-more...
I think it is fascinating that HN thinks it is bad for workers in other professions to protest against things that take away their earning abilities, and then proceed to protest against things that take away the earning abilities of tech workers — AI, immigration, outsourcing, non necessary layoffs, you name it.
There are multiple different people that post comments here, each with their own divergent opinions.
You do see some obviously popular opinions on many threads though.
You'd be surprised how much of a bubble HN actually is compared to the general public.
Doesn’t appear they were successful, seems self driving taxis are still allowed. From my understanding, they have better bargaining rights for companies intending to switch to automation, but nothing preventing a scrappy upstart with only driverless taxis from coming in and eating their lunch.
Exactly, there's an episode covering it on Freakonomics Radio: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/in-a-driverless-world-who-l...
Search Engine covered it too: https://www.searchengine.show/the-trial-of-the-driverless-ca...
> Just as the teamsters tried to ban cars to protect horse carriage drivers
Is that true?
So a random poster makes an assertion and rather than Google it and verify it yourself you throw out a request for another random poster to concur? And that concurrence you will take at face value and then believe the original assertion?
I think it's reasonable to request the person making the assertion to back it up. It's not on the audience to either only debunk or accept the assertion. It can just be rejected.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Why is an anodyne factual claim an “extraordinary claim”? What makes that particular claim extraordinary? They didn’t claim to have discovered perpetual motion or something you can’t prove or disprove yourself, just shared a historical fact you can easily just check up on if you choose not to believe them.
>Why is an anodyne factual claim an “extraordinary claim”? What makes that particular claim extraordinary?
FWIW I tried to get AI to substantiate it and came up empty. Maybe it's not as "extraordinary" as "Obama was a reptilian alien" or whatever, but for everything else what counts as "extraordinary" depends on your prejudices, I suppose. Regardless of whether it's "extraordinary" or not, it's definitely not common knowledge and needs to be substantiated rather than asserted without evidence.
No. Quite the opposite if these first search results I'm reading are any indicator.
You need to check your facts on that one just fyi. A cursory google search proves this is definitely not true.
Well yeah they're presenting an irrational argument to benefit the few.
> Well yeah they're presenting an irrational argument to benefit the few.
The only few that should benefit are the owners. If a few workers try to benefit, they're greedy bastards who would be pounded down.
I would also be opposed to laws making it illegal for anyone to compete with the owners.
Unions are great and all, but they cannot solve all problems purely by maximizing their demands. If the resulting business (with the unions and the costs of satisfying them) is no longer able to offer a compelling marketplace offering then all the unions accomplish is destroy their own jobs. This is actually nuanced (meaning there is probably an ideal balance where both parties can enjoy benefits, but too far in either direction is either toxic to the workers or kills the business) but unfortunately the discussion is generally conducted with this kind of flippant emotional appeal. I think that’s why unions are in massive decline. A ton of unionized jobs died because the businesses couldn’t compete, and businesses work to avoid unions at all costs because of that reputation. A lose-lose for workers.
A key thing to understand about unions is that they're a lot of effort to set up and manage, and the time spent on it is in addition to your normal work hours. They don't just spring up out of nowhere.
If you're looking at a union there's a specific reason it formed, and probably a specific person in management behind that reason.
> A lose-lose for workers.
There's an ancient saying in labor: "the only thing worse than a union is no union."
>A ton of unionized jobs died because the businesses couldn’t compete, and businesses work to avoid unions at all costs because of that reputation.
Do you have a source for any of this beyond "a corporate spokesmouth said so"?
When owners try to lock down industries with government restrictions, we also oppose that. In this case, society as a whole is harmed by what the unions are demanding. It means everybody, including other workers, get less affordable goods and services. Greater affordability through automation is the sole means by which wages and purchasing power increase over time.
ok hope you stick to this stance when ai comes for your job
i think your sarcasm detector might be faulty
Over the past two years, I have found Uber and Lyft rides getting more expensive than taxis in several large US cities, including Boston, Chicago, NY, and LA. Taxis are now 10-50% cheaper in my experience.
When I do take Uber and Lyft rides, I ask the drivers how much they're getting paid, and the amounts they tell me are often 30% to 60% less than what I paid, which is a bit shocking to me.
At some point, Uber and Lyft stopped being service providers that charged riders a fee for value provided. They have become market makers that squeeze as much trading profit as possible by arbitraging the prices riders are willing to pay and the rates drivers are willing to accept. I imagine they are capturing most of the value in each ride today. It's perfectly legal, but let's call what it is.
I'm not surprised about the ride-share driver union.
> At some point, Uber and Lyft stopped being service providers that charged riders a fee for value provided.
They were only ever this for about 30 seconds between when they were dumping investor cash to sell dollars for 75¢, and when they realized finally that no one even knew what a taxi was anymore, or how to find one. What literally every "cynic" said would happen.
I'm going to shout out Empower, it's a service like Uber that charges a flat fee to the driver every month, around 50 bucks, without taking any percentage fees, meaning both the riders save much more and drivers make much more, especially if they drive a lot.
Their rationale is that it should be more like hiring a contractor for your house, a platform wouldn't get a cut of the cost of your grass cutter so why should drivers be any different?
So far I haven't had any issues, although I did hear of some problems and controversies they have.
Namma Yatri is doing the same in India. Flat fee and your fare instantly goes to the drivers wallet. Previously, drivers at late night ask me to cancel the ride and hand over cash so they can buy petrol, Uber takes a long time to settle. Seems Uber responded to compete with them and maybe increased subsidy for riders.
I always wonder what Uber is doing with all that money. I know a former employee talked about the vast number of screens it has [0] but still, if these sorts of companies can beat them then I'm not sure what the Uber value proposition is, especially as it gets more expensive.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25376346
No doubt good for them, but I am curious how this is realistically going to work.
The barrier of entry to get new non-union drivers for Lyft and Uber is very low. If a strike does happen I can't imagine it would be hard for them to fairly quickly get new drivers, especially with the possibility of higher fairs due to high demand while it is sorted out. I have to imagine they would be able to get drivers far faster than most other situations with strikes.
I wonder if Uber and Lyft would even try to partner with gocurb or another app to funnel riders directly to taxies.
Not saying a union is a bad thing, I just wonder in this particular case how well it is realistically going to work out. Guess we will see.
> No doubt good for them, but I am curious how this is realistically going to work.
Seems like kind of a pilot-program nationwide TBH. The article links to another article last year about an MA ballot measure which made it possible for gig-work drivers to unionize in the first place (since independent contractors aren't covered by the NLRB at a federal level). It seems that the state labor board intends to sponsor the negotiation process, and per the ballot measure text would be responsible for figuring out what to do if negotiations broke down. Summary of the question is here, if you're interested (full text of the law is linked there): https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/publications...
What are you basing these guesses on? Workforce is pretty difficult to find on basically anything as far as I know.
You might have people that want to drive taxis but they would still have to get used to the streets, how the app works etc. etc. which can significantly degrade service quality.
The number of people with cars that might be willing to do some side work for some extra money?
It isn't like other jobs that have resumes and (possibly) long interview processes.
From what I can find we are talking a few days without talking to anyone and you are driving. Throw in Uber and Lyft doing an advertising campaign with incentives to start driving, I don't see any reason they could not have a potential large amount of drivers fairly quickly.
Maybe it won't be at ideal hours, maybe it will still be hit or miss, but there are a lot of drivers out there. Just due to the very nature of this being gig work.
All they really need to just ignore the union's demands is to be able to sign up enough drivers to out last the members not making money. Getting used to driving the streets and everything is up to the drivers, not uber or lyft. I am just reluctant to think it will actually work and the drivers won't cave. Trying to pass laws would be a more concrete fix.
The barrier of entry is simply owning a car. If you were offered $10,000 to drive someone for 20 minutes you'd likely do it. From there, it's just up to an algorithm to find the right number.
If someone offered me $10,000 to drive them 20 minutes then I would assume that they're transporting contraband or fleeing from law enforcement. Sometimes high prices are a signal that something is badly wrong with the deal.
For most cities, "get used to the streets" means "use GPS". They could be earning money the same day they sign up.
That puts the barrier to entry on the same level as grocery store workers. Granted, those too can successfully unionize; I agree that such strikes are only toothless when unemployment is high.
It's about time -- I hope rideshare drivers unionize in California as well. A UC Berkeley Labor Center study (2024) found rideshare drivers take home $7.12 per hour in median net hourly earnings before tips, which is less than half of California's $16 minimum wage at the time. https://inequality.org/article/exposing-the-rideshare-indust...
Has nothing to do with what time it is. It was the voters voting. CA could do the exact same thing. Waiting for it to happen is a great way for it to never happen.
Unions are great when they are fighting for worker's rights by demanding things like businesses sharing their profits with the workers who make it for them, more vacation time, required investments in safety, and protecting workers from getting fired for having the wrong skin color.
But when they get into the business of slowing down technology adoption to protect workers, that's when they get into the territory of giving unions a bad name. Getting together to lobby the government to make systemic changes to help displaced workers would be great, but it seems in this case they are trying to get government to just ban technology that replaces them.
> But when they get into the business of slowing down technology adoption to protect workers, that's when they get into the territory of giving unions a bad name.
I would consider the emputus more on companies to not roll out new technology in a way that harms workers.
> I would consider the emputus more on companies to not roll out new technology in a way that harms workers.
*Impetus, but also, why? Why is it a company's role to figure out how to soft land a technological advance that might cost you your job?
Why is it waymo's problem to help uber drivers?
Why shouldn't workers also lobby the government to help their material needs? Are only corporations entitled to welfare now?
There's also little benefit in discussing how "useful" this technology actually is if all the benefits are continually being captured by 1% of the population.
Good. All I can say is good. I wonder if Illinois or California would be next.
From an admittedly selfish point of view, I also don't mind this. I don't use rideshare anymore. I use my self-driving cars when I'm at home, use private vans to go to the airport, or rent a self-driving car when I'm traveling. Uber/Lyft were becoming too expensive for the low quality of service and I'd rather just pay for better quality at this point. They also drive terribly and make the road less safe for other drivers and pedestrians.
i'm so ready for fully self driving to take over
It's close and it will happen. In my Tesla it already drives itself nearly 100% of the time through city streets, highways, rush hour traffic, complex situations (hardware 4 Teslas are amazing). I also have a Toyota truck and it feels like such a downgrade to drive without self driving anymore. It's only a matter of time before Tesla and others perfect self driving (as Waymo nearly has done) and we no longer have human driven taxis/ubers/lyfts and regular drivers are also on self driving. It will save time, lives and reduce road rage.
It's not close at all. Not where it snows in winter. This union will last at least a decade. Waymo and Tesla claim to be coming for northern states but ice and snow tell a very different story. You simply can't go FSD in a snowstorm.
Are you sleeping in the back while the Tesla drives? Until you feel comfortable doing so, its stuck in the eternal 90%.
So far I've been impressed enough with the HW4 Teslas that I haven't had them do anything that I had to intervene to correct or prevent. It's pretty amazing at how well it handles all kinds of things - construction, weird merges, road debris. This morning, there was a tire in the middle of the road, which caused traffic ahead of me to slam to a halt. Mine had to brake hard enough that ABS engaged, and then navigated around the tire. I was impressed.
It doesn’t have to be completely unsupervised for the driver to realize huge improvements in quality of life. I don’t even notice when people drive slow or cut me off. I’m just relaxing, fiddling with the music or talking to my family. And managing two toddlers is a lot easier when my brain doesn’t have to run a constant background job.
I do hope that unsupervised comes soon though. The tech is there, or at least far enough that I consider it better than my own driving. The hurdle is regulatory now.
If you're distracted and not actively monitoring an SAE Level 2 autonomous system then you're a hazard to yourself and others. Don't do that. You need to be ready to actively intervene with zero advance notice.
You're technically correct of course, but the fact of the matter is every driver gets distracted/tired and having the FSD safety net only makes things safer, assuming you don't go out of your way to get distracted. I've lost count of the times I looked over at a "dumb" car being driven by someone on their phone. Would you rather that person be in a Tesla using FSD or in their Subaru Crosstrek?
I view this question pretty akin to “people are going to get rip-roaring drunk before driving, would you rather they do that in a Tesla or a Subaru?”
It’s not something I’m willing to accept either socially or morally.
Given that Uber isn't their W-2 employer, what happens if they just ignores them? My guess is Uber invites them to walk off the job.
Yeah, and that would disrupt Uber badly in the area.
In the article it mentions that this is a union of 70,000 independent contractors. I imagine that it would be very bad for Uber if they all decided not to drive simultaneously.
With collective organization, the union has a better chance to coordinate strikes and other collective action, as well as bargain for pay collectively rather than in a one to many relationship.
Uber could always find more people to drive cars though - it’s not a rare skill. It’s also the reason you don’t see a lot of fast food unions. If you can train a new employee in a week there’s a limit to the (union) demands it makes sense to comply with. Union shop grocery stores are one exception: a rare holdout of an earlier era.
But anyway, even though Uber might lose some sales in the short term while they build up more drivers, if the union’s demands would make the rides barely profitable (or where Uber loses money) then that’s not really an actual loss.
Not to mention it’s the drivers who still pay depreciation and insurance cost of their cars whether or not they drive.
Similar to another commenter I don’t really care or have a dog in this race, I’m just commenting on the actors and what their relative advantages are.
I wonder how much Uber/Lyft actually loses when nobody drives vs loses opportunity. A big part of union negotiating strength is how large the costs of doing nothing (like leases or contract delivery terms) is but I honestly have no clue how that works for Uber/Lyft (and it may vary a lot by region depending what Uber/Lyft are required to do in each area).
Not sure I agree. They have plenty of cash and can wait it out. The drivers don't.
I personally don't care about this as long as the costs aren't passed on to me.
Eh, the supply of drivers isn't as fungible as you might think. Insurance is quite expensive, that's what keeps me from doing it from time to time. That and I have zero desire to have to deal with the public.
> Yeah, and that would disrupt Uber badly in the area.
So what? Uber operates all over the world, losing some revenue (maybe not even profit) in one region is a loss they can eat. A Taxi company couldn't eat this kind of loss and would be forced to negotiate. Uber though? They can tough it out if it's advantageous to them.
This is the inevitable result of replacing local taxi monopolies or cartels with a multinational "tech" duopoly.
The end of driving as a profession is going to hit the economy hard. Teamsters may have the organizational strength and political influence to protect themselves. But they only represent ~20% of US truck drivers and none of the other ~3 million people who drive for a living in this country.
I don't see either American labor or American government being anywhere near strong enough or capable enough to facilitate a soft landing.
well fortunately the timing of the driverless future will seemingly align with figuring out nuclear fusion
If humanity actually put resources into fusion, I'm sure we would have already have it.
But humanity's resources are controlled by few, and they want more exploitation, enshitification and ads, not abundant energy.
Yup, it is the rich who are hoarding the secrets of avoiding neutron embrittlement. And we'll never tell you what they are.
I'm sure it would be much easier to solve with extra $10 trillion a year, which is pocket money compared to what goes into adtech, sloptech, attacking Iran and similar endeavors.
> The end of driving as a profession is going to hit the economy hard.
They should just learn to code! /s
> I don't see either American labor or American government being anywhere near strong enough or capable enough to facilitate a soft landing.
More seriously, I agree with this, but the problems are going to extend way beyond just transportation workers.
These are problems we could theoretically find solutions for, but we're headed into it at warp speed with an already absolutely broken political system and massive levels of wealth inequality.
I find it far more likely that the solution to this all ends up being chaos and bloodshed rather than properly managed preventive policy changes.
Society is fragile and operates in tension, a shared delusion like a currency. If workers burn down every autonomous truck on the road, there simply is not enough law enforcement to prevent them from doing so. There are only 1 million US soliders on US soil [1], there are 100 million workers. If they can't solve cargo theft incurring ~$35B/year in losses, how would they solve this? There are millions of trucks on US roads at any one time.
> I don't see either American labor or American government being anywhere near strong enough or capable enough to facilitate a soft landing.
Certainly not yet, but a resolution will present itself. The quality of which is to be determined of course.
(not advocating either way, simply enumerating the risk model; I am privileged that my day job is to get paid to think like a threat actor across various verticals and model accordingly)
[1] https://usafacts.org/answers/how-many-troops-are-in-the-us-m...
This is of course a dangerous suggestion, but also, never in the history of the world has the destruction of a technology that was replacing workers ever turned out well for the workers. At best it briefly delayed adoption.
When has it worked out for workers? Genuine question. If its not offshoring manufacturing (China before, South East Asia today) and services (India primarily), its importing labor to depress wages and keep workers in economic peril (there are approximately 720,000 to 750,000 foreign-born truck drivers in the United States, representing about 18% to 20% of the total commercial driving workforce, as of this comment) to encourage compliance with the status quo [1] [2].
If you work with workers so that they will have a safe landing through a just transition, such that longshoreman experienced when the cargo container revolutionized shipping [3] [4], you might get worker buy in. If you say you will with no evidence you will follow through, you will not get buy in, and whatever is the downstream impact of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of workers becoming redundant rapidly without a safety net.
Despite hope not being a strategy, as an observer, I hope that policymakers make a choice that leads to a net favorable outcome. If they do not, that is a choice.
[1] Is long-haul trucking really facing a driver shortage? - https://www.marketplace.org/story/2024/11/20/is-long-haul-tr... - November 20th, 2024
[2] Impacts of Alternative Compensation Methods on Truck Driver Retention and Safety Performance - https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/TRB-CAAS-22-01 - 2024
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Box_(Levinson_book)
[4] Arthur Donovan (1999) Longshoremen and mechanization, Journal for Maritime Research, 1:1, 66-75, DOI: 10.1080/21533369.1999.9668300 https://doi.org/10.1080/21533369.1999.9668300
That is possible, but unfortunately I think more realistic scenario is that instead of raising up and losing their chains, the masses will get brainwashed by algorithms and end up convinced it is the minorities fault or something.
The future, boot, face, forever, etc.
> If workers burn down every autonomous truck on the road
I don't think they need to burn them down, punctured tires would probably be enough.
Laziness on my part, my apologies, pick your system vulnerability to your preferences. Physical disablement, some flavor of cyber RCE, sensor spoofing or blinding, etc. Could be as easy as slowing in front of the vehicle to force it to a stop.
Risk Assessment and Threat Modeling for safe autonomous driving technology - https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.02231 | https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.02231
Autonomous Vehicle Security: A Deep Dive into Threat Modeling - https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15348 | https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.15348
That's a great allegory.
amazing news, good for them
Good on 'em, but autonomous cars are on their way and it might displace the union.
In my city, Zoox are already rolling out driverless taxi services, and the vehicles they are using are completely autonomous.
It will likely play out exactly like California’s disastrous special $20/hr fast food minimum wage[1]: a near immediate reduction in the number of people employed. They replaced a couple of $20/hr workers that were present taking orders with $3000 kiosks that run for $0.10/hour of electricity. And chains also closed locations whose fiscal viability were already close to the line, since “the line” jumped.
I don’t really blame the drivers for trying, I just think it’s probably not a viable long-term career, unfortunately.
[1] except of course if you’re Panera, coincidentally owned by a Newsom friend/donor. Good ol’ Bake-bread-on-premises exception!
The fast-food worker being replaced by a kiosk is inevitable and not limited to California, but even the kiosk is mostly transitory and destined to be largely replaced by a phone app.
I'm not sure. It may be cheaper for Uber to offload the insurance, depreciation and maintensnce of the vehicles to their human driver/owners, than for Uber to own, lease, and maintain autonomous cars. I haven't seen any analysis of that idea (not that I've looked very hard).