Tag: Lyft

The best conversation

The Uber/Lyft conversation in the Twin City area provides material to illustrate the dual nature of transactions. Let’s revisit the players. The drivers provide a service to riders for a fee. They also use a platform which takes a cut of the fare in exchange for technology services and national branding.

Drivers left the taxi structure back ten years ago or so. And it does not sound like they want to go back to the taxi arrangement and work for a boss, but are encouraging other ride share companies to enter the market. They are disgruntled with private pecuniary measures, yet satisfied with the soical benefits and flexibility of the job.

Riders are pleased with the services at today’s pricing. Present public transit options like the bus or metro mobility are actually cheaper but do not replace the service. The groups that would be most damaged by the loss of the ride share structure, since there is no substitute, are disabled folks and those who use it to go bar hopping. The social detriment to the first group would be internalized by loss of freedom and a reduction in trips to their medical appointments. Social detriment would be externalized through outcomes from drunken driving.

Another group of riders would have an impact on local businesses and conventions. The travelers who arrive from elsewhere in the US are familiar with Uber and Lyfts through their national presence. Their apps are already downloaded on their phones and they know the drill. The travel community is worried about how removing this transit option will be externalized onto their business.

Other ride share providers have always been able to enter the market. Drivers have always been able to seek out other work at traditional taxi oulets and other types of driver opportunities like school bus driving. (There are regular job postings for this in our districy choice.) Now that Uber/Lyft’s departure may be eminent, five other platforsm are said to be interested in the market. Yet there are regulatory costs.

Uber and Lyft’s threat to leave the Minneapolis area has sparked a lot of interest from outside players. But the cost of operating a ride share business is not for the faint of heart. It costs $37,000 for a license in Minneapolis, plus another $10,000 wheel chair accessibility fee. St. Paul’s license fee is $41,000. MSP Airport requires a $10,000 security deposit and a $500 license fee.

Separately, it costs about $150,000 to secure a commercial auto insurance policy for a rideshare company.

MSN.com

The issue around the driver’s fare split is presented, politically, as the wealthy corporate boss taking advantage of a punch clock worker. This isn’t the turn-of-the-century, nor are we talking about a factory. And since the platforms have yet to make a profit, that visual is difficult to sustain. But this broohaha may be the trick to get other companies to enter the market and have a go. Should they offer drivers a better cut, then the labor flow will move over to the ride share platform.

The key in all this is freedom. If drivers have the freedom to work as taxi drivers, or bus drivers, or drivers for ride share platforms, then they will gravitate to the best situation for their private interests, leaving the failing apps to die off. If riders find services that better suit their needs, then their business will filter over to new options.

Picking numbers and setting up a dam in the system inadvertently sets off financial as well as social repercussions without clearing them through the numerous social structures involved.

Private subsidizes eventually expire

Yesterday’s post revolved around Adam Pratt’s framing of the groups with a stake in Uber & Lyft’s departure from Minnesota, in his article Getting to the Big Picture on Rideshare. Today’s post tries to sort through which groups will have a thumbs up or thumbs down on their value outcome.

Pratt describes how the two tech companies were able to enter into a market and survive for a decade without making a profit.

Like some tech companies of the era, Uber was funded with billions in venture capital to allow it a path to viability. And like other tech stars of the era, that glide path lasted over a decade and allowed Uber to price its service below cost and pay drivers more than it could profitably afford.

The profit motive is important. If a private company is a going concern, then it needs to make a profit under the existing constraints. So many of the tech companies blasted through traditional ways of doing business and shut them down. Or disrupted them, as the then-popular phrase went. But in effect, only some of the new platforms delivered enterprises that ended up being profitable. And for Lift and Uber to make a go of things, part of the restraints is the objectional driver wages.

There has always been a subsidized transportation system available to the public. And this journalist, H Jiahong Pan, did a fantastic thread outlining all the options. He points out that many of them are less expensive than the ride shares. These buses don’t have routes is one of his articles about micro-transport but read his thread for all the details.

In effect, Uber & Lyft became a subsidized ride system for more than a decade. The consumers preferred it as it was timely and came to your doorstep. If you are blind, for instance, this can be world-changing. It wasn’t because it was cheaper. Others who benefit from the private subsidy (gift from private VC) are all those others who could have paid for a taxi, or driven their vehicle, but preferred a ride if they were going to throw back a few.

All riders will lose convenience with the departure. But those on the low-income scale will be most inconvenienced. Those on the mid-to-high income scale will replace the service with other for-hire drivers. Those who drink and drive could suffer, and cause suffering.

If anything, new information about the market should give public transit clear directions on what customers value. After all, even though a profit motive is not entirely in play, ridership is still a measure of the performance of the various public transit options. In many cities tracking of public transit is available online so riders can make their connections.

The drivers who need a full-time driver positions can transfer to public transit driving and earn quite a bit more money as well as benefits. The thing is, if they had wanted those jobs, they would have already made the switch. Most probably they don’t want to be committed to a boss and a schedule and they benefit in some way from the flexibility of being self-employed. All those who were doing it part-time just lost their part-time gig. Many side jobs are lower paid without benefits. It seems like this group, which is quite large, will lose out financially.

The politicians can tally a score in the win column. They went to bat on an issue and won. But to say they can account for a positive value in the people-over-profits net sheet is very much in question.