Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

[SevenEleven]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

Except for all the taxicab drivers who Uber put out of business and had to start driving for them.

Ok? Those people still can have a job doing the exact same thing. Do you seriously think that methods of distribution shouldn't change due to technological advancements?

I mean, if the argument is that working class people who drive for a living should be shoved out of their livelihoods so some privileged people who "just want some extra cash now and then" and have a new side gig, I don't think that's either humane and just, or accurate as to what actually happened in the market.

Lol, you can't be serious. Yeah, shouldn't pay the neighborhood kid to mow your lawn because you're putting the poor gardener out of business. Give me a break.

[Beet]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

Except for all the taxicab drivers who Uber put out of business and had to start driving for them.

Ok? Those people still can have a job doing the exact same thing. Do you seriously think that methods of distribution shouldn't change due to technological advancements?

I mean, if the argument is that working class people who drive for a living should be shoved out of their livelihoods so some privileged people who "just want some extra cash now and then" and have a new side gig, I don't think that's either humane and just, or accurate as to what actually happened in the market.

Lol, you can't be serious. Yeah, shouldn't pay the neighborhood kid to mow your lawn because you're putting the poor gardener out of business. Give me a break.

Uh yeah, pretty much. The "neighborhood kid" can always find some other way to get his allowance. The gardner needs a way to send his kids to college. I'll side with the latter every time.

The Uber mythology was always a collusion between the middle class "neighorhood kid" and millionaire/billionaire tech bros. F&#@ Uber.

[SevenEleven]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

Except for all the taxicab drivers who Uber put out of business and had to start driving for them.

Ok? Those people still can have a job doing the exact same thing. Do you seriously think that methods of distribution shouldn't change due to technological advancements?

I mean, if the argument is that working class people who drive for a living should be shoved out of their livelihoods so some privileged people who "just want some extra cash now and then" and have a new side gig, I don't think that's either humane and just, or accurate as to what actually happened in the market.

Lol, you can't be serious. Yeah, shouldn't pay the neighborhood kid to mow your lawn because you're putting the poor gardener out of business. Give me a break.

Uh yeah, pretty much. The "neighborhood kid" can always find some other way to get his allowance. The gardner needs a way to send his kids to college. I'll side with the latter every time.

The Uber mythology was always a collusion between the middle class "neighorhood kid" and millionaire/billionaire tech bros. F&#@ Uber.

Your ability to constantly generate the most awful takes is awe inspiring, to say the least. If you're job is so low in skill requirements that nearly anyone can do it, maybe it's time to find a new one. Uber driving is basically a paper route for adults. It requires nearly no skill and has few barriers to entry. You're basically competing with 100+ million people. Pretending that anything that universal can guarantee a lifestyle is a ridiculous notion.

In fact, the show my signature is taken from has some hilarious scenes regarding this very topic.

[Beet]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

Except for all the taxicab drivers who Uber put out of business and had to start driving for them.

Ok? Those people still can have a job doing the exact same thing. Do you seriously think that methods of distribution shouldn't change due to technological advancements?

I mean, if the argument is that working class people who drive for a living should be shoved out of their livelihoods so some privileged people who "just want some extra cash now and then" and have a new side gig, I don't think that's either humane and just, or accurate as to what actually happened in the market.

Lol, you can't be serious. Yeah, shouldn't pay the neighborhood kid to mow your lawn because you're putting the poor gardener out of business. Give me a break.

Uh yeah, pretty much. The "neighborhood kid" can always find some other way to get his allowance. The gardner needs a way to send his kids to college. I'll side with the latter every time.

The Uber mythology was always a collusion between the middle class "neighorhood kid" and millionaire/billionaire tech bros. F&#@ Uber.

Your ability to constantly generate the most awful takes is awe inspiring, to say the least. If you're job is so low in skill requirements that nearly anyone can do it, maybe it's time to find a new one. Uber driving is basically a paper route for adults. It requires nearly no skill and has few barriers to entry. You're basically competing with 200+ million people. Pretending that anything that universal can guarantee a lifestyle is a ridiculous notion.

Well I guess that settles it then. The tens of millions of people working unskilled retail and service whose jobs could be done by millions of other people with a little training should all just get new jobs and there's nothing bad about kicking them all out of work en masse if some tech billionaires can glorify themselves and some people who don't really need the money can get an extra side gig.

That's not going to cause any suffering. After all, it's the rule of the capitalist economy. The decimation of mill towns in the Midwest didn't have any negative effects either... oh wait.

[SevenEleven]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

Except for all the taxicab drivers who Uber put out of business and had to start driving for them.

Ok? Those people still can have a job doing the exact same thing. Do you seriously think that methods of distribution shouldn't change due to technological advancements?

I mean, if the argument is that working class people who drive for a living should be shoved out of their livelihoods so some privileged people who "just want some extra cash now and then" and have a new side gig, I don't think that's either humane and just, or accurate as to what actually happened in the market.

Lol, you can't be serious. Yeah, shouldn't pay the neighborhood kid to mow your lawn because you're putting the poor gardener out of business. Give me a break.

Uh yeah, pretty much. The "neighborhood kid" can always find some other way to get his allowance. The gardner needs a way to send his kids to college. I'll side with the latter every time.

The Uber mythology was always a collusion between the middle class "neighorhood kid" and millionaire/billionaire tech bros. F&#@ Uber.

Your ability to constantly generate the most awful takes is awe inspiring, to say the least. If you're job is so low in skill requirements that nearly anyone can do it, maybe it's time to find a new one. Uber driving is basically a paper route for adults. It requires nearly no skill and has few barriers to entry. You're basically competing with 200+ million people. Pretending that anything that universal can guarantee a lifestyle is a ridiculous notion.

Well I guess that settles it then. The tens of millions of people working unskilled retail and service whose jobs could be done by millions of other people with a little training should all just get new jobs and there's nothing bad about kicking them all out of work en masse if some tech billionaires can glorify themselves and some people who don't really need the money can get an extra side gig.

That's not going to cause any suffering. After all, it's the rule of the capitalist economy. The decimation of mill towns in the Midwest didn't have any negative effects either... oh wait.

Yeah, I too spend a lot of time lamenting the fact that I can't put my kids through college by delivering milk door to door.

[Beet]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

Except for all the taxicab drivers who Uber put out of business and had to start driving for them.

Ok? Those people still can have a job doing the exact same thing. Do you seriously think that methods of distribution shouldn't change due to technological advancements?

I mean, if the argument is that working class people who drive for a living should be shoved out of their livelihoods so some privileged people who "just want some extra cash now and then" and have a new side gig, I don't think that's either humane and just, or accurate as to what actually happened in the market.

Lol, you can't be serious. Yeah, shouldn't pay the neighborhood kid to mow your lawn because you're putting the poor gardener out of business. Give me a break.

Uh yeah, pretty much. The "neighborhood kid" can always find some other way to get his allowance. The gardner needs a way to send his kids to college. I'll side with the latter every time.

The Uber mythology was always a collusion between the middle class "neighorhood kid" and millionaire/billionaire tech bros. F&#@ Uber.

Your ability to constantly generate the most awful takes is awe inspiring, to say the least. If you're job is so low in skill requirements that nearly anyone can do it, maybe it's time to find a new one. Uber driving is basically a paper route for adults. It requires nearly no skill and has few barriers to entry. You're basically competing with 200+ million people. Pretending that anything that universal can guarantee a lifestyle is a ridiculous notion.

Well I guess that settles it then. The tens of millions of people working unskilled retail and service whose jobs could be done by millions of other people with a little training should all just get new jobs and there's nothing bad about kicking them all out of work en masse if some tech billionaires can glorify themselves and some people who don't really need the money can get an extra side gig.

That's not going to cause any suffering. After all, it's the rule of the capitalist economy. The decimation of mill towns in the Midwest didn't have any negative effects either... oh wait.

Yeah, I too spend a lot of time lamenting the fact that I can't put my kids through college by delivering milk door to door.

I mean if that was your job you would. You're saying the kids of blue collar or unskilled workers don't deserve to go to college?

[SevenEleven]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

Except for all the taxicab drivers who Uber put out of business and had to start driving for them.

Ok? Those people still can have a job doing the exact same thing. Do you seriously think that methods of distribution shouldn't change due to technological advancements?

I mean, if the argument is that working class people who drive for a living should be shoved out of their livelihoods so some privileged people who "just want some extra cash now and then" and have a new side gig, I don't think that's either humane and just, or accurate as to what actually happened in the market.

Lol, you can't be serious. Yeah, shouldn't pay the neighborhood kid to mow your lawn because you're putting the poor gardener out of business. Give me a break.

Uh yeah, pretty much. The "neighborhood kid" can always find some other way to get his allowance. The gardner needs a way to send his kids to college. I'll side with the latter every time.

The Uber mythology was always a collusion between the middle class "neighorhood kid" and millionaire/billionaire tech bros. F&#@ Uber.

Your ability to constantly generate the most awful takes is awe inspiring, to say the least. If you're job is so low in skill requirements that nearly anyone can do it, maybe it's time to find a new one. Uber driving is basically a paper route for adults. It requires nearly no skill and has few barriers to entry. You're basically competing with 200+ million people. Pretending that anything that universal can guarantee a lifestyle is a ridiculous notion.

Well I guess that settles it then. The tens of millions of people working unskilled retail and service whose jobs could be done by millions of other people with a little training should all just get new jobs and there's nothing bad about kicking them all out of work en masse if some tech billionaires can glorify themselves and some people who don't really need the money can get an extra side gig.

That's not going to cause any suffering. After all, it's the rule of the capitalist economy. The decimation of mill towns in the Midwest didn't have any negative effects either... oh wait.

Yeah, I too spend a lot of time lamenting the fact that I can't put my kids through college by delivering milk door to door.

I mean if that was your job you would. You're saying the kids of blue collar or unskilled workers don't deserve to go to college?

No, I'm saying your argument is incredibly stupid. The places where cab drivers can actually drive full time have very high costs of living and are unlikely to result in enough savings to put multiple kids who somehow can't even get scholarships through college. And even then, colleges and universities should be more merit-based with lower costs.

The nice thing about jobs is that you can always get another one. You can always acquire new skills if you put in the effort. The suggestion that I should pay $20 for something that has a market value of $10 is insulting. If you want a bigger paycheck, no one is forcing you to drive a taxi. Unskilled workers are always going to have a tougher time because skills are valuable. If that's a problem for you, the solution is easy. Acquire skills.

[Beet]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

Except for all the taxicab drivers who Uber put out of business and had to start driving for them.

Ok? Those people still can have a job doing the exact same thing. Do you seriously think that methods of distribution shouldn't change due to technological advancements?

I mean, if the argument is that working class people who drive for a living should be shoved out of their livelihoods so some privileged people who "just want some extra cash now and then" and have a new side gig, I don't think that's either humane and just, or accurate as to what actually happened in the market.

Lol, you can't be serious. Yeah, shouldn't pay the neighborhood kid to mow your lawn because you're putting the poor gardener out of business. Give me a break.

Uh yeah, pretty much. The "neighborhood kid" can always find some other way to get his allowance. The gardner needs a way to send his kids to college. I'll side with the latter every time.

The Uber mythology was always a collusion between the middle class "neighorhood kid" and millionaire/billionaire tech bros. F&#@ Uber.

Your ability to constantly generate the most awful takes is awe inspiring, to say the least. If you're job is so low in skill requirements that nearly anyone can do it, maybe it's time to find a new one. Uber driving is basically a paper route for adults. It requires nearly no skill and has few barriers to entry. You're basically competing with 200+ million people. Pretending that anything that universal can guarantee a lifestyle is a ridiculous notion.

Well I guess that settles it then. The tens of millions of people working unskilled retail and service whose jobs could be done by millions of other people with a little training should all just get new jobs and there's nothing bad about kicking them all out of work en masse if some tech billionaires can glorify themselves and some people who don't really need the money can get an extra side gig.

That's not going to cause any suffering. After all, it's the rule of the capitalist economy. The decimation of mill towns in the Midwest didn't have any negative effects either... oh wait.

Yeah, I too spend a lot of time lamenting the fact that I can't put my kids through college by delivering milk door to door.

I mean if that was your job you would. You're saying the kids of blue collar or unskilled workers don't deserve to go to college?

No, I'm saying your argument is incredibly stupid. The places where cab drivers can actually drive full time have very high costs of living and are unlikely to result in enough savings to put multiple kids who somehow can't even get scholarships through college. And even then, colleges and universities should be more merit-based with lower costs.

So your solution to the "stupid" argument that could be corrected by pointing out the limitation of cab drivers' salaries is to... suggest that cab drivers being put out of work, in which case they earn zero?

The nice thing about jobs is that you can always get another one. You can always acquire new skills if you put in the effort. The suggestion that I should pay $20 for something that has a market value of $10 is insulting. If you want a bigger paycheck, no one is forcing you to drive a taxi. Unskilled workers are always going to have a tougher time because skills are valuable. If that's a problem for you, the solution is easy. Acquire skills.

No, not everyone can easily "get another" job. Jobs tend to require experience, even low skilled ones. Not everyone can easily learn new skills or start a new career especially after a certain age. The suggestion that taxi fees are double that of Uber fees is ridiculous. Uber is not exactly cheap. For shorter trips it's often even more expensive than taking a taxi, and even for longer trips, it's not necessarily any cheaper if surge pricing is in place.

The fact of the matter is that there are tens of millions of people working unskilled jobs and simply yelling at them to "acquire skills" isn't the answer, nor should it be. An unskilled job is a perfectly respectable job and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Not everyone has to do a skilled job. These people deserve to be treated with respect and their families be given a chance to live in the middle class.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Taking a look at this from another angle, app-based ride hailing is absolutely an essential service and acting like it should just go away throws a wrench in the operations of a lot of businesses and the lives of a lot of people. In many cases, there just aren't any practical alternatives. Obviously, Uber going away just means Lyft can backfill and cab companies could implement an app-based model if they bothered to innovate, but ride-hailing is a clear net positive and has changed a lot of peoples' lives. Lots of people (myself included) have gone car-free with the rise of ridesharing and we don't depend on it every day, but we absolutely need it to get to certain places (the doctor, certain business meetings, friends homes, whatever random late night travel arises) where public transit just becomes wildly impractical. My job would become undoable without rideshare and I'm not alone. And before anyone comes at me for the low wages, I always tip at least 25%.

[SevenEleven]

Truck haulers can make decent money operating a vehicle for a living. Of course, you have put in more effort to acquire skills and certification than a taxi/Uber driver is asked.

Thanks to modern platforms, I've been able to get rides from deaf drivers (as opposed to taxi cabs, who focused more on utilizing blind drivers). Increased demand has led to a lot more work, including various food, grocery, and package delivery providers that create lots of new opportunities. The nature of the app helps to prevent racial discrimination that we are aware of being very prevalent in the past.

Anyone who suggests the taxi cab days were better is going for shock value. It's an indefensible position.

[Beet]

Truck haulers can make decent money operating a vehicle for a living. Of course, you have put in more effort to acquire skills and certification than a taxi/Uber driver is asked.

Thanks to modern platforms, I've been able to get rides from deaf drivers (as opposed to taxi cabs, who focused more on utilizing blind drivers). Increased demand has led to a lot more work, including various food, grocery, and package delivery providers that create lots of new opportunities. The nature of the app helps to prevent racial discrimination that we are aware of being very prevalent in the past.

Anyone who suggests the taxi cab days were better is going for shock value. It's an indefensible position.

No one is suggesting taxi cab days were better.

That's in good part because actual taxi cab drivers weren't displaced en masse, they simply switched to driving for Uber and Lyft full time. A significant minority of ridesharing drivers work over 35 hours a week, and another sizeable chunk works 20-35 hours a week. Amazingly, taxi cab drivers didn't just "get another job" or "get skills", they... got the same job. And without these people, the ride hailing companies would not have the service that they do, (since despite being a minority of drivers, they pick up a majority of the rides). People are quite resourceful when their livelihoods are on the line.

What I was going against was just your idea that those people being replaced wholesale by middle class kids having a little fun on the weekends was (1) what happened, and (2) perfectly okay. Believe it or not there is room to be both humane and have economic change at the same time.

[politics_king]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

Except for all the taxicab drivers who Uber put out of business and had to start driving for them.

Ok? Those people still can have a job doing the exact same thing. Do you seriously think that methods of distribution shouldn't change due to technological advancements?

I mean, if the argument is that working class people who drive for a living should be shoved out of their livelihoods so some privileged people who "just want some extra cash now and then" and have a new side gig, I don't think that's either humane and just, or accurate as to what actually happened in the market.

Lol, you can't be serious. Yeah, shouldn't pay the neighborhood kid to mow your lawn because you're putting the poor gardener out of business. Give me a break.

Uh yeah, pretty much. The "neighborhood kid" can always find some other way to get his allowance. The gardner needs a way to send his kids to college. I'll side with the latter every time.

The Uber mythology was always a collusion between the middle class "neighorhood kid" and millionaire/billionaire tech bros. F&#@ Uber.

Your ability to constantly generate the most awful takes is awe inspiring, to say the least. If you're job is so low in skill requirements that nearly anyone can do it, maybe it's time to find a new one. Uber driving is basically a paper route for adults. It requires nearly no skill and has few barriers to entry. You're basically competing with 200+ million people. Pretending that anything that universal can guarantee a lifestyle is a ridiculous notion.

Well I guess that settles it then. The tens of millions of people working unskilled retail and service whose jobs could be done by millions of other people with a little training should all just get new jobs and there's nothing bad about kicking them all out of work en masse if some tech billionaires can glorify themselves and some people who don't really need the money can get an extra side gig.

That's not going to cause any suffering. After all, it's the rule of the capitalist economy. The decimation of mill towns in the Midwest didn't have any negative effects either... oh wait.

Yeah, I too spend a lot of time lamenting the fact that I can't put my kids through college by delivering milk door to door.

And you're the one who accusing people of bad takes. You ever look in the mirror?

[SevenEleven]

I recently had my first driver mention Prop 22. He didn't know what AB5 was. He told me to vote No on 22, then told me to vote Yes on 22. It was a very weird experience.

[ctrepublican512]

Uber was never intended to be a full time job or even a part time one, it was an opportunity for people to supplement their income or earn some extra money.

I meant people who depend on Uber for transportation.

Contrary to popular belief, Uber is rarely the cheapest option to get between two places. I find it hard to believe there are a significant number of people who only have the option of taking Uber, especially given its relatively recent appearence on the scene. You'd need to be someone who lives in an area with no public transportation, but who still needs to commute long distances, who is wealthy enough to afford Uber, but not wealthy enough to afford a baseline used car. Am I missing some big demographic here?

Actually, a lot of people do depend on it, myself included. I use public transportation as well (Amtrak, commuter trains), and even then I still rely on Uber to get to stations, destinations thereafter, etc. Uber is the most reliable way for transportation, something that a taxi could not provide. Cabs are far more expensive, and I've even been refused before when going short distances.

[politics_king]

Uber exploits workers.

[dead0man]

Uber exploits workers.

This is the right move. If a city/state wants to make it impossible for a business to operate, the business should let the people there see what life is like without it.

Uber exploits people desperate for money.

exploits?  In your opinion, which entities that hire low skilled people don't "exploit" them?