A California Bill Could Destroy Uber's Unsustainable Business Model (vice.com) 190
Last week, the California Senate's Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee held a hearing and passed Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which promises to make it harder for companies to claim workers are independent contractors and increase the operating expenses of Uber, Lyft, and other on-demand companies that already find themselves unable to turn a profit. Motherboard reports: Written by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzelez (D-San Diego), AB5 codifies the California Supreme Court's unanimous May 2018 ruling in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles where an "ABC test" was introduced to determine whether a worker was an employee or an independent contractor. Individuals with sufficient control over how and when they did their work are independent contractors, while workers without much control are employees. While AB5 easily passed in the Assembly this May, 53-11, it has a long and ugly fight ahead of as it must pass multiple votes in the Senate then be signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom. Each step of the way is an opportunity for companies like Uber and Lyft to intervene and extract concessions.
Uber has never made a profit and has actually lost over $14 billion in the last four years alone. In the prospectus, Uber insists that these five major metropolitan markets are essential to its path to profitability. In reality, what Uber actually relies on is the $20 billion in funding raised over the past decade and the $8 billion in new investments after going public in May. This investor welfare covers the cost of low prices that render each rideshare trip unprofitable, of driver incentives to combat the high turnover rate of drivers, and of promotions used to drive up demand. Equity research analysts at Barclays project Uber is on track to lose $3.9 billion in 2019 and if AB5 were passed, it would cost the company upwards of an additional $500 million. A drop in the bucket. But if AB5 were to become law and other states follow California's example and pass similar laws, it could constrict these companies' already narrow paths to profitability.
Uber has never made a profit and has actually lost over $14 billion in the last four years alone. In the prospectus, Uber insists that these five major metropolitan markets are essential to its path to profitability. In reality, what Uber actually relies on is the $20 billion in funding raised over the past decade and the $8 billion in new investments after going public in May. This investor welfare covers the cost of low prices that render each rideshare trip unprofitable, of driver incentives to combat the high turnover rate of drivers, and of promotions used to drive up demand. Equity research analysts at Barclays project Uber is on track to lose $3.9 billion in 2019 and if AB5 were passed, it would cost the company upwards of an additional $500 million. A drop in the bucket. But if AB5 were to become law and other states follow California's example and pass similar laws, it could constrict these companies' already narrow paths to profitability.
So??? (Score:5, Interesting)
So what's the big deal?
Re: So??? (Score:1)
More importantly âoehow and whenâ are quite clearly a reasonable way to describe Uber/Lyft drivers.
If anything, this makes it easier to justify their drivers are independent contractors.
Ignoring that, Uber is buying time until it has autonomous vehicles. They donâ(TM)t want human drivers. They want people using their service to get a car that drives itself to take them somewhere.
Re: So??? (Score:4, Insightful)
At which point competition will come from all sides. Whatever "market share" Uber has acquired won't mean much for very long.
Re: So??? (Score:5, Interesting)
LOL (Score:1)
Re: LOL (Score:2, Insightful)
IT is a commodity that you purchase, like in the old days when you purchased Rolodexes and Steelcase filing cabinets.
All that Uber has of value is routing and travel pattern maps.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, cuz that mentality worked out so well for Hertz, buying software like it was a commodity.
Re: (Score:2)
You think Uber is better??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which they have tarnished and soiled.
A lot of people are still using Uber, and it has recognition. Even a brand with some issues that has recognition can do well. And this is not to be taken as my support for Uber, just a recognition of the reality of the situation.
Re: So??? (Score:1)
They're guidelines that are either based on the tax code or they're obligatory guidelines how the agency interprets the tax laws and thus will act, or they are guidelines that fill in the specifics to comply with a law. They by themselves might not be legally binding, but they provide orientation for writing legislation.
That said, the general idea is to phase out private ownership of all forms of transportation starting with cars. You'd think they would subsidize the crap out of any scheme that makes it con
Re: So??? (Score:2)
You'd think they
would subsidize the crap out of any scheme that makes it convenient to not own a car.
Please, define who they are.
Are they politicians, who get to hand out cushy gov't contracts for road work?
Are they car manufacturers?
The petrochemical industry?
Who, exactly, wins by discouraging private ownership of automobiles? Not only wins, but wins enough that that they can afford to take billions of dollars out of their pocket to discourage private vehicle ownership?
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't make sense. Uber and Lyft are increasing the number of people who use cars. Young millenials bragging that they don't own cars while at the same time they take a car two blocks to the train station.
Uber drivers are clearly contractors (Score:1, Insightful)
Uber drivers are clearly contractors. They pick what jobs they want, they pick their hours and they bring their own tools. He'll, they are independently licensed by the state. They don't wear a corporate uniform. How the fuck more contractor can you get?
This is all bitterness that the poor people can get where they want instead of being controlled by mass transit routes, and hatred of the independence granted by escaping employment. The democrats are all about controlling people, not helping people.
Re:Uber drivers are clearly contractors (Score:5, Informative)
Do they set their own prices??? Uber also sets driver requirements, vehicle requirements, insurance requirements, and you must sign and agree to Uber's Terms of Service.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they set their own prices??? Uber also sets driver requirements, vehicle requirements, insurance requirements, and you must sign and agree to Uber's Terms of Service.
I have been a contractor at the same company for the past 21 years. I am the only person in my corporation, which plays the middle man between me and the company. My company has had up to 3 employees at one point or another. But to your points, I was never able to set my own price, the employer has always required my company to provide my PC, and I have had to sign the contract they gave me, although they have not required that I get any insurance. My company has been charging the employer $100/hour for the past 18 years. I only work about 24 hours/week, arrive at work at 11 AM and leave between 5:30-6:00 4 days a week. How can you not call me a contractor?
Based on your description, the IRS would NOT consider you an independent contractor.
https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/sha... [oregon.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
What? Uber and Lyft are *expensive*, these companies do not cater to poor people. They're only barely less expensive than taxis because they shortchange the drivers.
Re: Uber drivers are clearly contractors (Score:2)
"unsustainable"? (Score:2)
why would anyone bother to go after it if it's already considered "unsustainable"?'
Re: (Score:2)
The intent isn’t to go after Uber, per se - it’s an attempt to give the workers some protection they don’t currently have.
And probably also to collect some money, I’d guess. Governments tend not to do the right thing for its own sake... unless there’s generally some other, more selfish, motive also involved.
Re: (Score:1)
If the intent is to protect workers, why isn't anyone taking about taxi drivers?
They're not employees either, and taxi companies have a lot more control. (A Yellow Cab driver can't accept Red cab calls.)
Yes, taxi drivers are currently contractors. They lease the car and hack license, paying a daily "gate fee".
Under CA's rules, the only way that taxi companies can classify their drivers as contractors is by arguing that it's customary. If they can claim that, so can uber.
Unless, of course, taxi companies
Re: (Score:1)
"It's about States Rights"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "unsustainable"? (Score:2)
Almost every state constitution spells out that education is compulsory and to be provided at no cost to anyone between ages of 5-18 (as I recall).
I suspect federal law said a state can't discriminate in offering services based on immigration status (for example, deny an illegal police protection, fire department services, or education).
That said, it is also likely a crime to lie about immigration status.
Re:"unsustainable"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
They hope to be profitable after autonomous cars make drivers neither contractors nor employees - just unemployed.
At which point the car manufacturers and/or dealerships will likely start pitching the concept of cars as a "service". We're actually not too far off from that, new car ownership is already out-of-reach for most Americans [cnbc.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you "fail to see" then you need to do more research.
Uber isn't any more economically efficient than traditional taxis. They've only been able to grow because of ride costs being subsidized by investors, woo'd by the prospect of complete monopoly. Wooing investors and tormenting journalists are the only areas they are actually competent in, and unfortunately those are two lucrative skills.
https://americanaffairsjournal... [americanaf...ournal.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? I didn't say Uber was efficient. On the contrary, I eluded that it must be VERY inefficient, because I can't see how they should be losing money. Your assertion that the ride costs are being subsidized by investors is complete nonsense. According to this [therideshareguy.com] page, Uber takes about 30% of what they charge customers. According to your own article, Uber charged customers $45B in 2018. By that measure, Uber took in $14B for the year. Besides some employees and infrastructure, some
Re: "unsustainable"? (Score:2)
Uber and Lyft are experts at spending money - compare their headquarters to, say, that of your local yellow cab company.
That's how they lose money.
Because they can do decades of damage (Score:5, Insightful)
The investors have also been happy to prop up Uber because Uber is eroding decades of hard fought employee protections and gains. No unemployment benefits, no insurance, no minimum wage. It's a return to piece work wages of the 1800. Assuming they can get away with it.
Re: Because they can do decades of damage (Score:1)
Until you're 27 and worn out. And have years of lack-of-discipline making you unhireable at a conventional job.
Re: (Score:2)
>And have years of lack-of-discipline making you unhireable at a conventional job.
?
Are we even talking about the same thing? Each shift you need to wake up, eat breakfast, dress by company standards, bring along water or liquid to avoid dehydration, possibly pack lunch.
And you need to interact with costumers to the best of your ability, despite being under trained and the FAQ pages generally being misdirection.
By itself that is in line with what is normal in work life.
If you go below these standa
Re: (Score:2)
You did set aside a reserve for maintenance and replacement of your vehicle, right? Taxi companies don't share too much of that information but estimates I've found online are that the reserve for operating a taxi is somewhere between $0.75 and $1.25/mile. Note that unlike the IRS rate for personal mileage this does not include the cost of gasoline.
The best description of Uber I've ever seen (Score:2)
Re: Because they can do decades of damage (Score:2)
It's the Gig economy, it's been around for years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And who decreed that it was unsustainable?
Taxis have existed for hundreds of years in many cities. Uber merely modernizes scheduling/beckoning, dispenses with ownership of the vehicle and replaces a contractor pool of drivers with one more flexibly tapped from the unwashed masses.
It seems right-sizing the scale of the company providing this valuable service, and choosing a sharing ratio with drivers that doesn't arouse rampant complaint are the only factors preventing the endeavor from being wildly profita
Re: (Score:2)
Considering Uber has been operating for 9 years, continuously loses money, takes on investors nearly as much as passenger revenue, it shouldn't take much investigating to reach that conclusion. Just stop uber's own manufactured narratives.
Re: (Score:1)
Taxis (Score:1)
Re:Taxis (Score:4, Informative)
Meh... let's just break it and all go back to using taxis.
Less than a third of Uber/Lyft ridership comes from taxis. Much of it is from people that would otherwise rent a car or take public transit.
I mostly use Lyft when I am traveling as an alternative to renting a car. Lyft is responsive, pleasant to use, and inexpensive. Taxis are none of those things.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
..checked to make sure that I had no felonies
You checked to make sure you didn't have any felonies??
Damn; some people shouldn't even bother trying to make up stories...
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Uber/Lyft are unsustainable as the vehicle owners are responsible for repairs. Taxi companies used/maintained their own vehicles. The app system will eventually fold as individual owners will not be able to maintain their $30,000 vehicles as they will need maintenance. Uber/Lyft drivers will realize this after it's too late.
So, like pizza delivery? That hasn't been banned, has it?
Re: (Score:2)
Pizza delivery cars are either (a) mom's car, which she lets the kid drive at her own cost so he/she gets the experience of working (b) an utter wreck driven by a person trying to make a full-time job of it; no sane person would accept an Uber or Lyft ride in such a vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Overall however there are more cars on the road because of ridesharing companies. Maybe it's a little cheaper for you but overall it using up more fuel and clogging the roads. And the cost of getting a rideshare to be at a certain location at a certain time was very expensive, as much as a standard airport shuttle service, they're more oriented towards spur-of-the-moment calls which is why they need so many redundant drivers (and why economically it can't work out in the long run).
Re: (Score:2)
Or walk, or ride a bike, or... Taxis in many cities in the US are relatively rare (barring Manhattan and Chicago primarily), and when they exist they go to a few places (airports, hotels). The rise in Uber and Lyft passengers never came from people who took taxis, the market segment is basically younger people who think that buying things from their phone is a great idea. Meanwhile the rideshare vehicles are turned on all day long hoping to get a passenger, using more gasoline overall.
Regardless, I think the old model is dead (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think there's any way of putting the toothpaste back into the tube here. Even if Uber and Lyft fail as a result of new legislation, they've still changed the on-demand transportation landscape permanently.
People will no longer be satisfied with taxis as the only alternative to owning a car, car pooling, or public transit. Uber and/or Lyft may increase their prices to cover the additional cost resulting from legislation, and tweak their business models to take advantage of the fact that they can still significantly increase both the density and the geographic range of rides-for-hire over what traditional taxi companies provide. Municipalities may be forced to lower the often-astronomical cost of a hack licence so taxi companies can offer better service at a lower cost. Taxi companies may take their cues from Lyft and Uber, and change both the way they do business and the technology they use. Alternatively, cab companies and/or Uber may [insert your own prediction here]. But the pre-Uber status quo probably isn't an option.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I see people taking rideshare where other options were previously used. Walking, buses, other mass transit, even actual ride sharing (multiple people going the same way). I am not making this up, I see people taking rideshare service to go to a mass transit location that's in easy walking distance on a nice day by someone who works out in the gym. The only way these companies say afloat today is by getting investors, they're not making profits and they're not even paying their workers enough to buy their
Re: Regardless, I think the old model is dead (Score:2)
Taxi companies could modernize their logistics and you would be happy to use them. That is the message I hear.
Re: (Score:2)
The taxis in our Medium City/County had a hailing app with regular text-message status updates at least 10 years ago, maybe longer. Problem is they still charge the full operating cost of their vehicles including the driver's share + profit, so their rate is always going to be higher than Uber/Lyft which depend on their operators not understanding that even the more reliable modern cars wear out when you use them heavily.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of the drivers understand it. Many are spending that investment they made when they were wealthier, or that comes from their family's pockets. When someone has no work, or very little work, That extra $20/hour or so passing through their hands makes a very real difference to the lives of many thousands of drivers across the US, especially if they already had to budget for a car for other reasons. For many of them, it's recovering _some_ value from a rapidly depreciating investment.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, they make money. That's why after a year, only 4% remain. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/2... [cnbc.com] That's uber has a significant driver turnover problem: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u... [wsj.com] That's why when any study investigates the net pay uber drivers make, they are making less than the 10th percentile of wage. https://www.epi.org/publicatio... [epi.org] or worse https://www.npr.org/sections/t... [npr.org]
You just think they're making money because you probably have been lucky enough to only ride with drivers who haven't yet
The ABCs are (Score:5, Interesting)
(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.
I like clear rules. They screw me and my clients. I do contract work for a specific wireless protocol. I work in my own office with almost all my own equipment. I meet A and C but B is open to interpretation. Most companies I work for the wireless code is key to their products. These companies do programming. They just don't do wireless programming for this protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
Just establish a "consulting" business and hire yourself. That solves B). And you would probably make more money too.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there's any ambiguity to B. The companies you do work for generally aren't in the business of being a software development company, they're in the business of building and selling networking or communications gear. You don't build or sell that equipment, you develop software.
Contrast that with you doing work for a software consulting firm that writes firmware for the equipment your current clients build and sell. The product the consulting firm sells is software and/or the development of that
Hi-tech and contractors (Score:4, Interesting)
So how does this affect hi-tech companies who employ a lot of contractors who don't come close to being contractors under this bill? The bill follows the California Supreme Court decision with three tests for independence, and most (not all but most) hi-tech contractors fail all three tests.
"The Court adopted a standard that presumes that all workers are employees instead of contractors. The burden is now on any entity classifying an individual as an independent contractor. Under the newly adopted ‘ABC test,’ a worker is an independent contractor to whom a wage order does not apply only if the hiring entity establishes all of the following:
(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact;
(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just going to say the same thing, however....
A) and C) can probably be defended with sufficiently obfuscated legalese
B) is trickier, but you get around it by hiring through a contracting agency. The hiring entity in that case is the agency, so that satisfies B).
Companies have been dodging these sorts of regulations for a long time, so they're pretty good at it. Uber and Lyft will have to learn the tricks of the trade, but they'll manage.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just going to say the same thing, however....
A) and C) can probably be defended with sufficiently obfuscated legalese
B) is trickier, but you get around it by hiring through a contracting agency. The hiring entity in that case is the agency, so that satisfies B).
Companies have been dodging these sorts of regulations for a long time, so they're pretty good at it. Uber and Lyft will have to learn the tricks of the trade, but they'll manage.
The problem with A is that it explicitly says that simply having a contract or other paperwork is not enough. If there is de facto ("in fact") control, then the worker is an employee regardless of what any contract says.
The problem with B is that often there are recognized employees not only managing these workers but also performing similar work. So, the argument that the work performed by regular employees and contractors in the same group is "outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s busine
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with A is that it explicitly says that simply having a contract or other paperwork is not enough. If there is de facto ("in fact") control, then the worker is an employee regardless of what any contract says.
Well, no, not exactly. It says "free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work". Control can easily be interpreted as who you directly report to, and most contractors are set up to "report" directly to their agency. They may have a liaison within the company, but if there is a complaint about the performance of your work, it goes through the agency. They cannot penalize you directly. They can't ask or
Re: (Score:2)
So how does this affect hi-tech companies who employ a lot of contractors who don't come close to being contractors under this bill? The bill follows the California Supreme Court decision with three tests for independence, and most (not all but most) hi-tech contractors fail all three tests.
"The Court adopted a standard that presumes that all workers are employees instead of contractors. The burden is now on any entity classifying an individual as an independent contractor. Under the newly adopted ‘ABC test,’ a worker is an independent contractor to whom a wage order does not apply only if the hiring entity establishes all of the following:
(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact;
(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.
Because ... because ... because shut up! We're just trying to destroy Uber here! Don't go getting all technical and legal and equitable on us!
Don't Like It? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Don't Like It? (Score:5, Interesting)
The other way would be to allow drivers to set their own prices, and let uber do the match up and just take a percentage. If someone wants to uber in a McLaren and charge $25/km, so be it.
Re: (Score:3)
The other way would be to allow drivers to set their own prices, and let uber do the match up and just take a percentage. If someone wants to uber in a McLaren and charge $25/km, so be it.
This. Done right, it would turn the Uber app into a real-time ride auction, which would naturally handle surge pricing as well.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Done right, it would turn the Uber app into a real-time ride auction, which would naturally handle surge pricing as well.
You can despair right now of Uber doing anything right, so you should either pitch this idea to Lyft, or get crackin' on an implementation.
Should have listed the test (Score:2)
Here it is:
(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and
(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entityâ(TM)s business; and
(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
These are not odd things. Uber etc. will
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think B is actually trivial. Uber isn't a driving company - it's a *matchmaking* company. Its primary business is matching customers to drivers, and payment processing.
The whole *point* of Uber is that they do not have their own fleet.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just parroting the bullshit narratives uber has written to absolve themselves of following employment and other laws.
Did uber provide matchmaking for any arbitrary service? No. It's for driving specifically. Their own description on the app store is:
The words "matchmaking" don't appea
never had a chance (Score:2, Interesting)
Uber was clearly riding on the new dot-com hype and it never had a chance for longterm survival.
First, there are reasons taxi companies operate the way they do. To just ignore them all and believe you've found the holy grail is adequate behaviour for a teenager, but not for a company. An in-depth analysis of which parts of the old business model are relevant and need to be kept and which parts are outdated, and why, and what you replace them with to reach the same goal - but that's too much serious analysis
Re: (Score:2)
The taxi companies in my Medium City/County had a similar app (although not as comprehensive as you describe) 10 years ago. The problem is that a legitimate taxi company is going to have to charge [ taxi operating cost + depreciation for a taxi-service vehicle + driver's remuneration + profit]. Whereas Uber/Lyft just ignore the deprecation and profit and count on their drivers not understanding either the depreciation or the true operating cost of what they are doing. So the legitimate taxi company's rates
Re: (Score:2)
individuals who need a short term income boost to hold them over between real jobs may be perfectly content losing money for a short term boost to survive between real jobs.
flash quiz: Do you think you can build sustainable business model on the constant availability of a sufficient number of such people?
Someone comes up with a good idea and it kills outdated systems.
Except that it isn't a good idea. It's basically a scam. Stealing things is a short-term superior strategy to buying them, and it will kill the outdated brick-and-mortar shops system - but it's not a good idea. The part you're cutting out (paying for things) is actually an essential part of the thing.
Same with Uber. The parts they're cutting out (driver qualification, vehicle
Er ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The distinction is less ambiguous (Score:1)
How are Uber drivers not contractors? (Score:2)
They choose their own hours (both how many hours to work and when to work).
They supply all the equipment and tools (the car, the phone etc) and get to choose what equipment to use (within some limits set by Uber).
They are (as far as I know) free to drive for other companies as well as Uber.
Uber does restrict the vehicles the contractor can use but that's no different to a construction company telling a contractor they can only use a power tool that has been inspected and tagged as safe.
Re:How are Uber drivers not contractors? (Score:5, Insightful)
The drivers don't control how much they charge customers. Uber/Lyft set the rates.
Drivers have no say in which customers they take, Uber/Lyft assign rides.
Drivers don't get paid by the customer and then remit Uber/Lyft's fees to them. Uber/Lyft collect the payment and pay the driver the amount they've determined he's due (goes back to the first point).
Uber Insanity (Score:2)
This stuff is insane....
Uber
> Drive your own vehicle
> Work your own hours
> Choose your own routes or service areas
> Can simultaneously do other things, or work for competitors.
Contractor for Big Government jobs, often with multiple layers of sub-contractors.
> Must use their equipment
> Must work in specified location
> Must work during hours specified
But naught an investigation.... go figure.
Re:How expensive could it possibly be to run uber? (Score:5, Interesting)
They aren't charging enough on fares to keep their company and the drivers running. They've tried to become more sustainable by trimming driver payments, but it's still not enough. Even with a limited monopoly, taxi companies weren't incredible profit generators. The main reason Uber and Lyft are cheaper is that they're being subsidized by investors to try to get enough of a market dominance they can then increase prices.
Re: (Score:3)
There's not much barrier to entry by other competitors, hence the Uber/Lyft dirty tricks wars. As soon as prices go up to make the business model actually profitable, other actors will come in.
Meanwhile, whose pension plans have been loaded inisibly with Uber/Lyft junk shares?
Re: (Score:2)
Even with a limited monopoly, taxi companies weren't incredible profit generators.
With some exceptions, going by the astronomical cost of a taxi license in some places.
Re: (Score:2)
Scarcity of licences will push the price up. As long as the licence is a ticket to enough steady income to live and pay off the interest payments on the loan you took to buy the licence, you can sell it when you retire.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't charging enough on fares to keep their company and the drivers running. They've tried to become more sustainable by trimming driver payments, but it's still not enough.
Then ... it will end on its own, right?
Why would you need a law to kill an "unsustainable" business model?
Re: (Score:2)
One state in an equatorial nation can make itself a lot of money by cutting down its rainforest and selling it on the premium wood market. Such a program will end on its own when the entire state is a desert and its people migrate elsewhere, but the nation as a whole may nonetheless think it wise to pass laws prohibiting any individual state from doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Campgrounds are in direct competition with hotels. Therefor campgrounds are hotels.
Silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live that's right, campgrounds are hotels and they pay the "hotel tax."
Re: (Score:2)
Really now?
I dare you to try to order a pilot to fly to a specific address.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the nearest KOA campground here is a home for Amazon workers at the warehouse down the street.
Re: (Score:2)
Railroads and airlines and bus companies are in direct competition with taxis. Therefor trains and planes and buses are taxis. Campgrounds are in direct competition with hotels. Therefor campgrounds are hotels.
Until they create taxis that can fly across oceans I can't see in what sense taxis and airlines are in the same business. In general people commute over longer distances by train than they tend to use taxis over, although there is some overlap. Trains don't come to my door (closest 2 miles away), so a train isn't exactly a direct replacement for a taxi. I am lucky enough that there is a bus route about two minutes walk from my house, though. I've used taxis, trains and buses to get to an airport, but that's
Control ! (Score:1)
Re: Craigslist analogy (Score:1)
When Craigslist starts notifying you of items that their customers want so you can go out and find them to list, yes they will be equivalent.
Re: (Score:2)
Only when Craigslist tells you what items you need to find for sale and what price you'll be paid for them.
Re: (Score:2)
but not for the reason the left wing extremists in CA claim
If you think that CA is run by left wing extremists then you don't know what left wing extremists are. CA is run by moderate centrists.