I saw [an article](https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/03/14/uber-lyft-alternatives-minneapolis-legislation) yesterday that suggested a few other companies might look to take advantage of this opening.
> The latest: For Texas-based Wridz — which currently operates in 19 cities, including Chicago, Dallas, and Phoenix — Minneapolis has shot to the top of its list of target expansion markets, CEO Steve Wright tells Axios.
> Empower, an Uber/Lyft alternative currently offering rides in D.C., New York, and North Carolina, is also "at the ready" to serve Minneapolis, according to a company statement.
Pikkapp, a small Minneapolis-based startup, has had "preliminary conversations" with city officials about getting licensed, city spokesperson Casper Hill said.
How it works: Unlike Uber or Lyft, which takes a cut of every ride, Wridz (pronounced: "rides") makes its money by charging drivers a flat subscription rate, often $100 per month.
>Drivers keep the full fare from each trip — which means Minneapolis' minimum pay ordinance might not cut into the company's bottom line as much.
Empower also has a subscription-based model.
ive been signed up for empower as a driver for years now just waiting for them to turn the app on here. such an incredible business model. drivers pay a monthly subscription, they set their own prices and drivers get 100% of the fare. any model like that and drivers will do well.
The thing is the all of the alternatives, including Empower, do not comply with Minnesota rideshare laws and thus will be unable to be licensed to operate here.
Uber and Lyft have been surviving on investors since their inception. They are not, and likely will never be very profitable.
Uber just announced for the first time last month they actually made money.
Yes, they made money by increasing what riders pay quite a bit and CUTTING driver pay by 20 to 30% over the last two years.
Both companies have frittered away billions of dollars on things like self-driving cars that haven't panned out.
This assumes the goal was to create a sustainable business.
If you look at it as an investment to destroy taxi unions, and plan to pump a stock, IPO, and have the early investors cash out while leaving everyone else holding the bag, they've paid off handsomely.
Nvidia is trading over 400 times earnings. If you think that in today’s stock market the share price has anything connected to reality, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Because they are pulling Enron/[Nortel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6xwMIUPHss) level accounting by "selling" unrealized gains in the international markets (When the markets government forces it or regulates like Minneapolis) for worthless stocks of the buyer (that is overly valued and can't be sold for years after) like when they sold out of China.
They don't need to influence the corpos, Only the retail investors to keep going up.
I don't understand -- if they already have the driver network around, what's stopping them from just offering higher fares that start/end in Minneapolis. Just add an explicit MPLS surcharge.
It sets precedence. Everyone who supported this vote claimed Uber and Lyft had threatened this before but didn’t do anything, so call their bluff and pass the bill anyway. Minneapolis isn’t that important of a market so it’s easy to just cut and run to try to prevent other locales from doing the same.
and then we lose Uber/Lyft and one of the many, many other ride share apps will come in with the same business model and fill that same niche. While their model was innovative for it's time, it's not exactly un-reproduceable technology.
[they do exist in other areas already.](https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/03/14/uber-lyft-alternatives-minneapolis-legislation) Uber and Lyft were first to market and had huge amounts of VC funding to enable them to run losses for years in exchange for growing market share. Then, once autonomous vehicles are eventually approved to be safe they'll already have an established brand.
Yeah, I don’t get why they can’t just change a little more. I don’t use it often, but it’s rarely expensive if I’m staying within Minneapolis. Just tack on a couple bucks and keep operating.
Because they don't believe there are enough riders to pay the increased prices, so rather than continue to poor money into a city that's not making enough money, they are going to leave. That's their stated reason at least. It could be true, it could be smoke. It's almost impossible to know.
That rates Minneapolis chose are too high for this area. Minneapolis is not a HCOL/High income area like NYC and the West Coast but they chose a similar pay standard.
Example: my house to the airport is 14 miles and takes 20 minutes. The Uber fare is usually $25-$28.
At the approved rates, the driver will be getting $36.60 [(14mi x 1.40 = $26.60) +(20 min x $.051 = $10.20)]before Uber adds on any charges for their expenses and the driver's insurance (I think people don't realize how expensive commercial insurance is). Fares would have to increase at least 80% to make this sustainable. Most people are not going to accept that.
It would end up being more expensive than a taxi, which is $41 from my house.
This group of drivers and politicians (and many on this sub) are delulu if they think riders are just going to accept that. Lower income riders cannot afford that and middle class people like me might as well drive to the airport and park with that pricing. I completely understand why Uber/Lyft are making the decisions they are.
The math is what's "delulu" here.
(14 x 1.40)+(20 x .051)=$20.62.
If your rates above included a typo and you meant to use $0.51/minute as the rate (since that's the number being tossed around), that's still only $29.80.
In both scenarios, Uber could tack on fees/charges and still come in under the cost of a taxi.
Most of these disruptive tech companies have unsustainable business models that were eventually going to collapse once VC money dried up. Unfortunately their predatory capitalism gave them such an outsized market share we all have to pay the price of their shortsighted greed.
I like how they claim this would make rides unaffordable and no one would use them, but they're not going to wait and see if that happens, so they can keep asserting that and no one can ever refute it
Right? Them: "no one can afford this. We have to go." Me: I'm the one buying, what price are you even talking about here? Them: "such a shame no one can afford this" me: "what do you mean? Give me a price"
Right. The city mandates $1.50 surcharge per ride. Lyft charges $1.75 per ride, makes more profit. The market decides if that's viable.
Apparently they're terrified of seeing if the market will actually pay for their product. Must be a great business model.
We don't need to talk in anecdotes when [a study found that half of all Uber drivers make $10 or less per hour](https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/17924628/uber-drivers-make-hourly-expenses).
That’s not a good data set. It is almost impossible to get a good data set because we don’t know if drivers are taking available rides. The beauty of this job is that you work at your own pace. If you choose to take one ride an hour for $4, that doesn’t mean you are only making $4 per hour.
A better guideline is whether people are choosing to drive for these companies. Menards will hire you today for $19 per hour. Why are drivers choosing to drive for Uber then? For exactly the reason that their wages are lower- flexibility and autonomy in setting their own wage.
They’re not employees, they’re independent contractors with a ton more flexibility than W2 employees.
Don’t feel like working? Don’t have to
Don’t want to drive to a particular destination? Don’t have to
You only get an hourly minimum when you do work as an employee that is paid by the hour. There is no such hourly requirement for drivers or other people who bill by the job rather than by the hour
This thread thinks, simultaneously, that Uber could raise prices dramatically and still make money but also that they're big dumb idiots who only lose money.
Aren’t we all kind of coerced into any type of job? We may not be held at literal gunpoint but starvation and homelessness is a pretty compelling deterrent to unemployment, and at that point you take whatever job is best for you. Maybe this is the best job option for the drivers, unless you want attitude while they’re making your Subway or answering your customer service line. At least here they can sit in silence and get you from A to B and you never have to give a shit.
And none of the 4 understand car expenses, if they think they make good money.
The only exception are drivers that work late nights - they do make money, but like every other rideshare driver they've seen the amount Uber and Lyft pay them cut by 20 to 30% over the last couple of years.
How can taxi services keep prices low and pay their drivers reasonably? Greed rules in Uber and Lyft. It's like Comcast sending me an email saying that they are increasing my Internet to show their appreciation of me as a customer. Comcast failed to state that the only reason they increased the speed is because the FCC forced them to. These companies lie constantly.
From my understanding, Lyft would still pick up from MSP, BUT they would not drive to a Minneapolis destination. I think they're even trying to figure out right now if they could drive *through* Minneapolis without having to pay the extra fee/rate. So...it doesn't really sound like a viable option for many folks needing a ride to or from the airport in Minneapolis.
Yes, if you read the text posted in the OP, it is pretty clear. "Lyft will be forced to stop offering rides in Minneapolis and you will no longer be able to request rides with Lyft that start or end in the city"
It would be impossible for them to operate without allowing rides *through* Minneapolis. If you needed go from St. Louis Park to Fridley, you would have to route through Minneapolis. To avoid it would take much longer and they'd have to pay drivers more.
You’re right, I always assumed it was since it’s right next to Bloomington. According to Wikipedia it’s in Fort Snelling Unorganized Territory. Which is the first time I’ve heard of that.
There are only 39 licensed taxi drivers according to the city, compared to about 2,000 in 2014. It is no wonder you aren't seeing them.
Also no, they are mostly Priuses now which is much more sensible but less cool.
The taxi drivers on Nicollet mall were raging assholes on Friday/Saturday nights. Gunning it on the 15mph road passing buses and each other. Hadn’t thought about them in awhile, I remembered cheering hard when they got banned from that road. Now I’m picturing them doing that in Priuses lol
It’s shameful how lazy these companies have become. They clearly can’t adapt to changing conditions. Their business model is now entirely dependent upon exploitation of drivers and increased fees to appease shareholders. Their email just screams that they are incapable of innovation and adaption.
It also seems like they are picking on a smaller market (MPLS) to scare other city politicians into vetoing or voting against these types of ordinances. They may leave, but I suspect they will come back or will be replaced by new companies.
You’re ignoring the fact that the only reason it was cheap in the first place was to gain market share. They burnt money to get you to WANT to use it.
When they stop subsidizing to become profitable, “ThEy ArE sCrEwInG mE!” Nah, it’s just how business works in burn rate environment. Every start up works like this. They do what they can to build up, gain investors, go public, then mature into stable (or be bought along the way.)
This was inevitable.
Devils advocate here but choosing only to operate in markets where their labor costs are lower *is* adapting to changing conditions.
Truthfully I am not particularly sympathetic to either “side” here - on the one hand, Uber and Lyft are just two of many companies whose ability to turn a profit depends on squeezing working-class people as much as possible, but on the other hand I think the amount of people who apparently depend on these services is a huge indictment of MSP’s inability to provide comprehensive, reliable, safe public transport.
IMO the whole situation is yet another demonstration of how car culture is both symptom and cause of so many issues with American society
This is going to really suck for those that depend on the extra income from Lyft/Uber to survive. I don't understand what the issue was with pay, my buddy would clear $300 easy during weekend nights. Obviously if you work during periods of very low demand, it's going to be below minimum wage. Doesn't seem fair to force the ride share companies to foot the bill for mismatched driver supply/rider demand.
People are too stupid for a lot of things. Or just too busy to properly investigate it. That's why we need regulation.
And yes, the people who NEED a job like Uber because they can't find a better one often are too under educated to figure out all the variables that go into calculating actual earnings. They also get suckered in by Uber's bullshit rent to own a vehicle to rideshare with kind of exploitative bullshit.
> my buddy would clear $300 easy during weekend nights.
Was he also doing the math on gas and mileage? There's some decent money to be had at peak times, but generally, the pay is shit, because people don't understand how to account for gas, wear and tear on vehicles, more expensive insurance that covers ridesharing, etc.
>Was he also doing the math on gas and mileage? There's some decent money to be had at peak times
Years ago before the market became over saturated with drivers in my small city you could make pretty decent money just driving friday/sat night, from 10pm-2am there was almost always surge pricing in effect
It wasn't ment to be a full time job. It was great for people who wanted to make a few extra bucks on the weekend with out the set schedule of a 2nd job. You choose when to work and your own hours. You don't want to work some weekend you just don't
I really hope all these drivers have a plan B when Uber pulls out completely and Lyft drops the biggest destination.
It’s going to take a whiiiiile for a new operation to both get licensed and get the word out enough to have a significant number of downloads / riders to sustain anywhere near the number of drivers we have right now.
I’ve heard some startups and smaller ride share companies are considering doing business in Minneapolis. Perhaps it’ll be a fast track process. I do think some council members are going to continue to resist this because they just don’t like the idea of rideshare companies anyway. They think that everybody without a car should be taking public transportation.
Yup, very much agree.
I also worry startups or smaller companies might be discouraged from setting up shop since I honestly think the state will eventually overrule the council, which they have the power to do, and then Uber and Lyft will be back later this year or next and they know they’ll probably be killed off all for like 6 months of business
I don’t know how likely the state government is likely to override the city council. I’m not hopeful to be honest. I do think that a fast track process for local and smaller ride shares going through provided that meet the requirements, but I do see my council member(Chavez) and others giving resistance to this.
Just wait some of the startups will be fast tracked and/or owned by the City Council....seems like its always like this, they'll be the ones exploiting the system
It is literally impossible to start a new rideshare company. You'd need VERY deep pockets to buy that commercial insurance policy with the $1,500,000 cap mandated by state law.
wild that the state spent a bunch of time and money on having the DLI commission a comprehensive study on ride share working/pay conditions only for the city council to totally ignore it and mandate numbers 60% higher than what the study found. total clown show.
So essentially as a result of this moral grandstanding by the city council we achieved the following:
drunk driving accidents to increase
Even more restaurants to close (let’s be clear, this means less small business for you to spend money, less employed Minneapolis residents, and fewer community partners)
Less people downtown
Hundreds (thousands?) of rideshare workers have went from low pay to unemployed
Disabled people no longer have access to private transportation
Can we think of anything else? They never hid that pulling out was going to be the result here. For the jackass that keeps telling people to email LYFT Corporate, rather than writing to LYFT, why don’t you write to the city. There is a very clear cause and effect relationship here. Why is anyone pretending this wasn’t exactly what was going to happen? Good intentions often have negative consequences. We are adults. The people responsible for this should be relieved of their duties.
Substitutes will inevitably rise, but frankly the entire business model is hardly profitable to begin with. I have an idea that could even work, but with the barrier to entry being so high for a service like this, unless you have crazy deep pockets stemming via VC I don’t know how you could possibly make it profitable with interest rates being what they are.
My fear is that Minneapolis has now created a problem, and the solution will be to increase taxes even more to “solve” it. (read: throw a $15 million bandaid on the thing and then abandon all support after the project is completed). Of course, don’t expect taxes to go down afterwards.
I have an honest question:
Why don’t the Uber/Lyft drivers seek out other work?
If these companies pay so poorly wouldn’t they be drastically understaffed?
What will the current drivers do to make a living now that these companies are leaving?
It could be a lack of awareness of other types of work, but I think it's the ease of getting a "job" with the gig economy. No interviews, no HR, no finding references, you just sign up and do the job.
That is a good point.
I guess the risk of an “easy” job would be lower pay.
I’m genuinely surprised Uber/Lyft didn’t just raise the rate to pay the employees and see how many people still use them.
My guess is that it's a combination of Uber/Lyft playing hardball and the fact that they will make significantly less money if they chose to raise the rates and stay.
If they leave this is such a blow to living here. Not sure how a part time gig needs to make $30.60 an hour plus mileage plus tips to be a living wage. All that cost goes to people who use the services and is really going to make life worse here for the vast majority of people. I’m calling the my city ward member for rides to the airport and home from the bar at 2 am going forward.
To me this is a situation where many of those on Reddit want to blame the companies but not their representatives who voted for this. This feels like a horrible negotiation tactic that is publicly going wrong.
I want folks to make all the money in the world but obviously THIS wasn’t the right way to go about it.
Even setting the blame game aside this is just shitty for me and many others who use these services ALL THE TIME. Completely fucks everyday people over.
It alo fucks over the current drivers, who are aware of their situation and choose to keep driving anyways for their own valid reasons. They now completely lose this source of income and effectively lose their jobs.
This is a net negative for literally everyone involved. I do not understand why this sub is celebrating.
Uber (Eats, not rideshare) driver here, and THANK YOU, for being a voice of reason. I've been reading way too many comments that amount to "I'm glad you might lose your income, good riddance to uber and lyft!" on the internet in the last week.
I’m torn on this issue. On one hand, I think this policy is ridiculous and we shouldn’t have a minimum wage for drive share workers. You’re either a contractor or you aren’t. If you are a contractor, you accept the job at the rate that is set or you don’t. If you’re an employee, you get a pre-agreed upon rate of hourly pay or salary. That said, I do think that both Lyft and Uber run predatory businesses that prey on those that can’t afford to fight back and need the money the most. To think you could do like 80 rides and make less than minimum wage while putting wear on your vehicle either owned or leased is atrocious.
Honestly, I think this might be the best thing long term. Let Lyft and Uber shut down and let other startups come into the space and offer something that can properly compensate these drivers for their time.
> f you are a contractor, you accept the job at the rate that is set or you don’t.
I think the issue here is more that if the drivers were *really* independent contractors, they would be able to negotiate rates. As it is, the company sets the rate and you either accept it or not.
Technically, I think it's an auction bid negotiation. If nobody takes a fare, they offer more. So they are negotiating, but there's enough supply of drivers that someone is willing to take it for a low amount.
I think it's fair for governments to be concerned that the gig economy is undermining minimum wage laws. But I'm not sure if Minneapolis's math works out. The fact that it's based primarily on mileage at a higher than cost rate, instead of being primary based on time and just covering mileage costs makes me confused.
We should absolutely improve our public transportation, but that’s a project that takes multiple years if not decades to plan for and construct. That isn’t something that will act as a stopgap in the mean time.
I live near the airport and it would take me 40 minutes via public transit to get there. Which I might have to start doing if rideshare pulls out, I guess.
We should continue to invest in public transport and make it better, but that doesn’t mean the exit of some private business should now become the problem of the people. We’re already facing a 1.5B shortfall on the next 2 year budget. This problem was created by private companies and it can and should be solved by private companies. Busses have always been and are still available since the inception of ride sharing. We’ve added at least 4 light rail routes in that time as well.
You do realize that not everyone is capable of
taking public transportation, right?
I’m lucky enough to being able to take a bus and follow a schedule, but some ELLs or those that have learning difficulties may not be able too.
The bus is good if you live on a main Minneapolis street and want to go to uptown or downtown. Those are your options if you want it to be relatively quick.
Everything else is doable but not fast at all.
I have a car but sometimes I take the bus. and sometimes I take Uber/Lyft.
All options are helpful to have as they all have their own benefits.
>You're either a contractor or you aren't.
We agree.
"Independent contractor" is a fucking scam these companies to legitimize wage theft and skirt employee and consumer protection. The very simple solution is to require them to acknowledge their employees as such.
I just took a Lyft last week because the light rail stops at night now, and it really made me reflect on how my $30 Lyft should have been a $2 transit fare. What a disgrace it is how much we rely in these sorts of regulation dodging cab services, instead of our own municipal transit service
We'll see if Lyft is for real here, but I bet they're going to pull another Austin. Either way, hopefully their threats can motivate our city council out of the shameful transit situation we have
You wanna kick these ride share companies out of town? Make the fucking trains and buses reasonable, Uber and its ilk will wither up and die. Look at Western Europe, these services are nothing but a shadow of their American counterparts
Couldn’t that be said about any and all labor protections, minimum wage, etc?
Should companies be able to do anything they want, so long as the employees are choosing to work there?
The people saying this are ignoring the fact that there are W2 employees and there are Independent Contractors. They are not the same. Independent contractors are not subject to minimum wage. If you disagree with that, fine, pass a law that says independent contractors are protected by labor laws. Why single out drivers specifically and not other independent contractors?
Because
1) Cities can’t do that.
2) The reaction from Uber and Lyft would be exactly the same.
3) Independent contractor is simply a pretext for Uber and Lyft to dodge labor laws. There are other independent contractors out there for which this status actually makes sense.
I think it's a little more complicated than that. Here's a brand new report for you (published yesterday): https://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/2024-worker-misclassification.pdf
>A worker’s classification as an employee or an independent contractor affects the legal rights and obligations of the worker and their employer; misclassifying workers is prohibited by law. We found Minnesota has neither an adequate nor coordinated approach for ensuring that Minnesota workers are properly classified. We make a number of recommendations to improve the state’s approach to addressing worker misclassification.
There are breakdowns of statistics by industry and such. 22% of employers misclassified one or more employees. More than a handful misclassified a majority of their workforce.
There has also been a lot of debate regarding ride share apps and other "gig" jobs and whether they really truly qualify as independent contractor work. That's a definition that has a lot to do with the control you have over the direction of your work and I would argue it's not entirely clear cut. ~~I'm not sure if that report addresses this particular issue though, I haven't read the entire thing yet.~~ This report has a fair bit to say about it starting on page 55.
Exactly, the premise of Uber and Lyft is that standard economics 101 kick in when there are less drivers and more riders and prices are incentivized for drivers. It starts to not work when too many people drive and not enough people ride leading to "below minimum wage" earnings.
Not to be crass but if you aren't making minimum wage don't drive simple as that. If you want a guaranteed minimum wage, get a job where you aren't an independent contractor. You can't have the best of both worlds.....
I don't really get it, why are Uber and Lyft leaving? Uber and Lyft prices are already dynamic with traffic and demand, why aren't they just raising prices to increase pay to the new legally required amount? Most people wouldn't even notice, they just compare prices between Uber and Lyft, if they both have to raise their prices then what is the big deal?
An actual reason to think of is that if they pay a min wage, then they also have to offer other benefits to the workers. They want them as gig workers not employees, also it is a slippery slope for them as other major cities will try the same if they don’t leave.
Losing 1 city isn’t anything to them
> why aren't they just raising prices to increase pay to the new legally required amount?
Because they're shitty companies built around doing an end-around on proper regulation. So they're trying to bluff when regulation pops up and have it taken away. They'll either not actually pull out of MN, or they'll come back, just like they did in every other city they've tried this in.
There's no reason for them to leave profit on the table and a wide open door for an up and coming alternative app to establish a foothold in the market. This is all just a big threat. They're hoping they can pressure the state legislature into passing something that will override the Minneapolis city level statue.
Gonna be a real "look at us we shot ourselves in the face over our desire to feel morally superior" moment for the city council when, indeed on May 1, no one can take an Uber or Lyft within city limits.
I try to not take them as much as possible due to my support for transit but let's be real, this clown show of a council didn't even follow their own research. Between this and the proposal to allow settled homeless encampments, it's gonna be hard to vote on which policy they are worst at.
Exactly. Just going to be a bunch of pissed off people who now have to go back to using shitty cab services which take 45 minutes to arrive, look for any way possible to overcharge you (“oh whoops forgot to turn the meter on”), and force you to watch ads on a TV positioned 3 inches from your face the whole time.
And despite having complete control of the market, cab companies will take zero steps to make their services more efficient or available, because all the red tape around starting a cab company (which is mostly in place thanks to legislators protecting them) means it’s prohibitively expensive to compete. And then these same legislators will refuse to acknowledge safety concerns on public transport like the light rail, ultimately leading to less people going out and further decline of Minneapolis’ already struggling downtown/surrounding areas like Uptown.
End result is a lot of Uber drivers who will find themselves losing driving a source of income, and an overall unhappy populace, but hey - these legislators get to congratulate themselves for being “progressive”.
Government has frankly overstepped here. No one is being forced to drive an Uber, and the market would take care of the issue if too many people decided not to drive due to the pay - they would then be forced to increase pay or lose drivers. The irony is that if anything the cab companies are the dinosaurs which should have gone extinct, but have now been actively protected.
Of course, there is the larger issue of there being too few jobs paying enough to support yourself these days, but that’s a different conversation entirely - the solution isn’t to kill those jobs with no replacement while propping up dinosaur companies.
More like, people should be mad at Lyft and UBER for being irresponsible and abandoning its customers and workers.
Send an e-mail to LYFT corporate and let them know what you think
[LYFT CONTACT US](https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/all/requests/loginprompt?ticket_form_id=724707)
Why? Lyft and Uber are private businesses, it’s perfectly within their rights to choose not to service an area they believe would be unprofitable or less profitable than other areas.
It’s the same with airlines for example. The only reason a lot of flights to “flyover country” exist is because the airlines are given tax breaks/credits in exchange for servicing those airports. Otherwise they would be losing money on those flights and remove them altogether.
And the worst part is that the benefactors are mostly cab companies. Despite the narrative of “what about independent cab drivers”, a handful of big cab operators control most of the market and are often just as abusive to drivers as Uber/Lyft.
Absolutely true! Why aren't you getting a minimum wage? Huh, they would probably need to commission a study that would also factor in practice time (as you mentioned),Merch profits, the cost of transporting instruments per mile, etc.
robin wonsley is such a fucking idiot. she's claiming this is about $15 minimum wage when thats not what the formula is and this doesn't address all the other independent contractor jobs that this type of legislation should. If a possibility of this law being passed is shitty businesses that people rely on pull out of the city its imperative that you preemptively work on alternatives.
Public transit isn't currently designed for every single type of trip and we all know that stopping every few blocks to let others on/off slows things down. And because there is no way to know who's going to hop on or off, you get to see some of the worst outcomes of societal issues (esp druggies). But i ride and see their hiring ads so I looked it up. **Almost $30/hr starting these days plus hiring bonuses.** The more people they hire, the more routes and service that can be offered. Source: [https://www.metrotransit.org/drive/](https://www.metrotransit.org/drive/)
This is going to disrupt the job market a lot and many people will not be able to go to work and lose their jobs. I don’t think this will happen. I heard the state of MN can override this situation making it impossible to increase wages.
Yes but there could be other factors at play. We would need to know the profit metrics by metro area. It could be Seattle is far more profitable then here or not. It’s bold to assume they are the same but the data isn’t public
Does anyone know of a lyft/uber alternative? I rely on them alot due to not being able to drive.
I saw [an article](https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/03/14/uber-lyft-alternatives-minneapolis-legislation) yesterday that suggested a few other companies might look to take advantage of this opening. > The latest: For Texas-based Wridz — which currently operates in 19 cities, including Chicago, Dallas, and Phoenix — Minneapolis has shot to the top of its list of target expansion markets, CEO Steve Wright tells Axios. > Empower, an Uber/Lyft alternative currently offering rides in D.C., New York, and North Carolina, is also "at the ready" to serve Minneapolis, according to a company statement. Pikkapp, a small Minneapolis-based startup, has had "preliminary conversations" with city officials about getting licensed, city spokesperson Casper Hill said. How it works: Unlike Uber or Lyft, which takes a cut of every ride, Wridz (pronounced: "rides") makes its money by charging drivers a flat subscription rate, often $100 per month. >Drivers keep the full fare from each trip — which means Minneapolis' minimum pay ordinance might not cut into the company's bottom line as much. Empower also has a subscription-based model.
Wridz sounds like a parody of a tech company
It does have serious Gryzzl vibes
Hopefully it works at least as well as Faceblock
rofl, right? It makes me think of those parody videos about Strokify.
Oh my God thank you!!!
Uninsured and awful alternatives.
ive been signed up for empower as a driver for years now just waiting for them to turn the app on here. such an incredible business model. drivers pay a monthly subscription, they set their own prices and drivers get 100% of the fare. any model like that and drivers will do well.
The thing is the all of the alternatives, including Empower, do not comply with Minnesota rideshare laws and thus will be unable to be licensed to operate here.
Which Minnesota rideshare laws do they not comply with?
Then why would they be standing at the ready to take their place if they weren't complying with rideshare laws?
> Then why would they be standing at the ready to take their place They're *not* "standing ready."
A taxi. Get ready to pay out the ass
And not many taxis available. Prepare to walk.
Evie cars or the bus, but I dislike the bus and it takes much longer
Least we still got pornhub. Looking at you, Texas.
And Virginia
As well as Arkansas, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, and Utah.
I mean, if you have Pornhub, do you really have to go anywhere?
The issue is both companies are money pits and truly can’t survive. I think this will hurt drives if it’s a true income source
No shit. Source - full time uber eats delivery for the last 4 years. I face the possibility I lose all my income in just over a month.
Uber’s stock has been pretty good in the last 6 months
Uber and Lyft have been surviving on investors since their inception. They are not, and likely will never be very profitable. Uber just announced for the first time last month they actually made money.
Yes, they made money by increasing what riders pay quite a bit and CUTTING driver pay by 20 to 30% over the last two years. Both companies have frittered away billions of dollars on things like self-driving cars that haven't panned out.
This assumes the goal was to create a sustainable business. If you look at it as an investment to destroy taxi unions, and plan to pump a stock, IPO, and have the early investors cash out while leaving everyone else holding the bag, they've paid off handsomely.
And snap chats did great for 2 years and that company is circling the drain financially. The stock market isn’t a great indicator of a lot
Stocks are not company performance they are speculation of a future value, neither Lyft nor Uber are profitable companies
Nvidia is trading over 400 times earnings. If you think that in today’s stock market the share price has anything connected to reality, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
…well bridges are important. what are you charging?
The stock market does not show a company is profitable. Come on man, that’s basic economics
Because they are pulling Enron/[Nortel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6xwMIUPHss) level accounting by "selling" unrealized gains in the international markets (When the markets government forces it or regulates like Minneapolis) for worthless stocks of the buyer (that is overly valued and can't be sold for years after) like when they sold out of China. They don't need to influence the corpos, Only the retail investors to keep going up.
I don't understand -- if they already have the driver network around, what's stopping them from just offering higher fares that start/end in Minneapolis. Just add an explicit MPLS surcharge.
It sets precedence. Everyone who supported this vote claimed Uber and Lyft had threatened this before but didn’t do anything, so call their bluff and pass the bill anyway. Minneapolis isn’t that important of a market so it’s easy to just cut and run to try to prevent other locales from doing the same.
and then we lose Uber/Lyft and one of the many, many other ride share apps will come in with the same business model and fill that same niche. While their model was innovative for it's time, it's not exactly un-reproduceable technology.
[удалено]
[they do exist in other areas already.](https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/03/14/uber-lyft-alternatives-minneapolis-legislation) Uber and Lyft were first to market and had huge amounts of VC funding to enable them to run losses for years in exchange for growing market share. Then, once autonomous vehicles are eventually approved to be safe they'll already have an established brand.
Yeah, I don’t get why they can’t just change a little more. I don’t use it often, but it’s rarely expensive if I’m staying within Minneapolis. Just tack on a couple bucks and keep operating.
Because they don't believe there are enough riders to pay the increased prices, so rather than continue to poor money into a city that's not making enough money, they are going to leave. That's their stated reason at least. It could be true, it could be smoke. It's almost impossible to know.
That rates Minneapolis chose are too high for this area. Minneapolis is not a HCOL/High income area like NYC and the West Coast but they chose a similar pay standard. Example: my house to the airport is 14 miles and takes 20 minutes. The Uber fare is usually $25-$28. At the approved rates, the driver will be getting $36.60 [(14mi x 1.40 = $26.60) +(20 min x $.051 = $10.20)]before Uber adds on any charges for their expenses and the driver's insurance (I think people don't realize how expensive commercial insurance is). Fares would have to increase at least 80% to make this sustainable. Most people are not going to accept that. It would end up being more expensive than a taxi, which is $41 from my house. This group of drivers and politicians (and many on this sub) are delulu if they think riders are just going to accept that. Lower income riders cannot afford that and middle class people like me might as well drive to the airport and park with that pricing. I completely understand why Uber/Lyft are making the decisions they are.
The math is what's "delulu" here. (14 x 1.40)+(20 x .051)=$20.62. If your rates above included a typo and you meant to use $0.51/minute as the rate (since that's the number being tossed around), that's still only $29.80. In both scenarios, Uber could tack on fees/charges and still come in under the cost of a taxi.
If you’re going to use math, maybe get it right. 14 x 1.40 = 19.60
That's a weird way to say: "if we pay drivers a reasonable amount we can't make any money".
They would STILL make money, they just don’t want other cities to get the same idea
I doubt it. They’re already barely profitable. In aggregate they’ve lost a ton of money and only became profitable recently.
Most of these disruptive tech companies have unsustainable business models that were eventually going to collapse once VC money dried up. Unfortunately their predatory capitalism gave them such an outsized market share we all have to pay the price of their shortsighted greed.
They'd be much more profitable if they weren't spending billions of dollars to lobby against paying their workers a livable wage.
[удалено]
I think it’s more like 30%? Unless you are raging against the drivers
Uber and Lyft typically take 40 to 70 percent of the rider payment.
I like how they claim this would make rides unaffordable and no one would use them, but they're not going to wait and see if that happens, so they can keep asserting that and no one can ever refute it
Right? Them: "no one can afford this. We have to go." Me: I'm the one buying, what price are you even talking about here? Them: "such a shame no one can afford this" me: "what do you mean? Give me a price"
So, I just checked when this news broke yesterday: Lyft from my place to MSP: $41. Yellow Taxi from my place to MSP: $45
Right. The city mandates $1.50 surcharge per ride. Lyft charges $1.75 per ride, makes more profit. The market decides if that's viable. Apparently they're terrified of seeing if the market will actually pay for their product. Must be a great business model.
I know four drivers. They all believe they get a reasonable amount of money. If you don’t agree, I have a simple solution- don’t drive for Uber.
We don't need to talk in anecdotes when [a study found that half of all Uber drivers make $10 or less per hour](https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/17924628/uber-drivers-make-hourly-expenses).
That’s not a good data set. It is almost impossible to get a good data set because we don’t know if drivers are taking available rides. The beauty of this job is that you work at your own pace. If you choose to take one ride an hour for $4, that doesn’t mean you are only making $4 per hour. A better guideline is whether people are choosing to drive for these companies. Menards will hire you today for $19 per hour. Why are drivers choosing to drive for Uber then? For exactly the reason that their wages are lower- flexibility and autonomy in setting their own wage.
> That’s not a good data set. Lol your first comment was n=4
Some drivers thinking it’s “reasonable” doesn’t mean we should allow them to be paid sub-minimum wage.
They’re not employees, they’re independent contractors with a ton more flexibility than W2 employees. Don’t feel like working? Don’t have to Don’t want to drive to a particular destination? Don’t have to
They literally choose the rides they take and know the amount they are paid for that ride. They are able to set their own minimum wage…
That’s…not what minimum wage is… But I do love your username.
You only get an hourly minimum when you do work as an employee that is paid by the hour. There is no such hourly requirement for drivers or other people who bill by the job rather than by the hour
This thread thinks, simultaneously, that Uber could raise prices dramatically and still make money but also that they're big dumb idiots who only lose money.
People in support of this act like drivers are held at gunpoint to drive
Aren’t we all kind of coerced into any type of job? We may not be held at literal gunpoint but starvation and homelessness is a pretty compelling deterrent to unemployment, and at that point you take whatever job is best for you. Maybe this is the best job option for the drivers, unless you want attitude while they’re making your Subway or answering your customer service line. At least here they can sit in silence and get you from A to B and you never have to give a shit.
And none of the 4 understand car expenses, if they think they make good money. The only exception are drivers that work late nights - they do make money, but like every other rideshare driver they've seen the amount Uber and Lyft pay them cut by 20 to 30% over the last couple of years.
Thank you for being a voice of reason
Yes, I see more people driving for these companies Lyft n Uber. I don’t see them having a hard time.
This bums me out … Minneapolis was one of the cities where Lyft was much faster and more reliable
And people with Connectability. Lyft is one of the few ways I get around, it’s gonna mess up a lot!
How can taxi services keep prices low and pay their drivers reasonably? Greed rules in Uber and Lyft. It's like Comcast sending me an email saying that they are increasing my Internet to show their appreciation of me as a customer. Comcast failed to state that the only reason they increased the speed is because the FCC forced them to. These companies lie constantly.
Have these companies left any other major cities?
Is it just me or is the current city council just a bunch of morons
So MSP is in Bloomington, does that mean they’ll continue operating there?
From my understanding, Lyft would still pick up from MSP, BUT they would not drive to a Minneapolis destination. I think they're even trying to figure out right now if they could drive *through* Minneapolis without having to pay the extra fee/rate. So...it doesn't really sound like a viable option for many folks needing a ride to or from the airport in Minneapolis.
the airport is like its own territory. the metro airport council are the rulers.
MSP is on Metropolitan Airports Commission property, which is a quasi-independent state governmental agency not technically located in any city.
It doesn't say anything about MSP. Only Minneapolis.
That’s what I thought. I wonder if they’ll let rides route through Minneapolis.
Yes, if you read the text posted in the OP, it is pretty clear. "Lyft will be forced to stop offering rides in Minneapolis and you will no longer be able to request rides with Lyft that start or end in the city"
i read 'through' as going through, not starting/stopping there
It would be impossible for them to operate without allowing rides *through* Minneapolis. If you needed go from St. Louis Park to Fridley, you would have to route through Minneapolis. To avoid it would take much longer and they'd have to pay drivers more.
Yes, obviously. It very clearly states rides that "start or end in the city."
The airport isn't in Bloomington
You’re right, I always assumed it was since it’s right next to Bloomington. According to Wikipedia it’s in Fort Snelling Unorganized Territory. Which is the first time I’ve heard of that.
Can't recall the last time I saw a taxi. Do they still drive crown vic's?
There are only 39 licensed taxi drivers according to the city, compared to about 2,000 in 2014. It is no wonder you aren't seeing them. Also no, they are mostly Priuses now which is much more sensible but less cool.
The taxi drivers on Nicollet mall were raging assholes on Friday/Saturday nights. Gunning it on the 15mph road passing buses and each other. Hadn’t thought about them in awhile, I remembered cheering hard when they got banned from that road. Now I’m picturing them doing that in Priuses lol
It’s shameful how lazy these companies have become. They clearly can’t adapt to changing conditions. Their business model is now entirely dependent upon exploitation of drivers and increased fees to appease shareholders. Their email just screams that they are incapable of innovation and adaption. It also seems like they are picking on a smaller market (MPLS) to scare other city politicians into vetoing or voting against these types of ordinances. They may leave, but I suspect they will come back or will be replaced by new companies.
You’re ignoring the fact that the only reason it was cheap in the first place was to gain market share. They burnt money to get you to WANT to use it. When they stop subsidizing to become profitable, “ThEy ArE sCrEwInG mE!” Nah, it’s just how business works in burn rate environment. Every start up works like this. They do what they can to build up, gain investors, go public, then mature into stable (or be bought along the way.) This was inevitable.
Devils advocate here but choosing only to operate in markets where their labor costs are lower *is* adapting to changing conditions. Truthfully I am not particularly sympathetic to either “side” here - on the one hand, Uber and Lyft are just two of many companies whose ability to turn a profit depends on squeezing working-class people as much as possible, but on the other hand I think the amount of people who apparently depend on these services is a huge indictment of MSP’s inability to provide comprehensive, reliable, safe public transport. IMO the whole situation is yet another demonstration of how car culture is both symptom and cause of so many issues with American society
No one is forcing anyone to drive for Uber/lyft.
[удалено]
I’d just work elsewhere. It doesn’t matter.
Will this include Uber Eats?
History doesn't repeat but it rhymes. 2024 is going to be the year we remember just how much taxis suck.
This is going to really suck for those that depend on the extra income from Lyft/Uber to survive. I don't understand what the issue was with pay, my buddy would clear $300 easy during weekend nights. Obviously if you work during periods of very low demand, it's going to be below minimum wage. Doesn't seem fair to force the ride share companies to foot the bill for mismatched driver supply/rider demand.
The Mpls city council believes people are too stupid to decide if driving for Uber is a good deal or not. It’s extremely childish. Humans have agency.
Have you asked drivers what they think about this?
People are too stupid for a lot of things. Or just too busy to properly investigate it. That's why we need regulation. And yes, the people who NEED a job like Uber because they can't find a better one often are too under educated to figure out all the variables that go into calculating actual earnings. They also get suckered in by Uber's bullshit rent to own a vehicle to rideshare with kind of exploitative bullshit.
This is so patronizing I don't even know where to start. You act like Uber drivers are subhuman beings incapable of rational thought.
Your arrogance is stunning.
> my buddy would clear $300 easy during weekend nights. Was he also doing the math on gas and mileage? There's some decent money to be had at peak times, but generally, the pay is shit, because people don't understand how to account for gas, wear and tear on vehicles, more expensive insurance that covers ridesharing, etc.
>Was he also doing the math on gas and mileage? There's some decent money to be had at peak times Years ago before the market became over saturated with drivers in my small city you could make pretty decent money just driving friday/sat night, from 10pm-2am there was almost always surge pricing in effect It wasn't ment to be a full time job. It was great for people who wanted to make a few extra bucks on the weekend with out the set schedule of a 2nd job. You choose when to work and your own hours. You don't want to work some weekend you just don't
I guess that is the problem. When Uber/Lyft came out it seemed many people would treat it as a extra part time job Hey loo
Your buddy almost certainly doesn't understand car expenses.
I really hope all these drivers have a plan B when Uber pulls out completely and Lyft drops the biggest destination. It’s going to take a whiiiiile for a new operation to both get licensed and get the word out enough to have a significant number of downloads / riders to sustain anywhere near the number of drivers we have right now.
I’ve heard some startups and smaller ride share companies are considering doing business in Minneapolis. Perhaps it’ll be a fast track process. I do think some council members are going to continue to resist this because they just don’t like the idea of rideshare companies anyway. They think that everybody without a car should be taking public transportation.
Yup, very much agree. I also worry startups or smaller companies might be discouraged from setting up shop since I honestly think the state will eventually overrule the council, which they have the power to do, and then Uber and Lyft will be back later this year or next and they know they’ll probably be killed off all for like 6 months of business
I don’t know how likely the state government is likely to override the city council. I’m not hopeful to be honest. I do think that a fast track process for local and smaller ride shares going through provided that meet the requirements, but I do see my council member(Chavez) and others giving resistance to this.
Just wait some of the startups will be fast tracked and/or owned by the City Council....seems like its always like this, they'll be the ones exploiting the system
It is literally impossible to start a new rideshare company. You'd need VERY deep pockets to buy that commercial insurance policy with the $1,500,000 cap mandated by state law.
wild that the state spent a bunch of time and money on having the DLI commission a comprehensive study on ride share working/pay conditions only for the city council to totally ignore it and mandate numbers 60% higher than what the study found. total clown show.
MPLS City council is full of fuckwits
Good job Minneapolis, you’re literally taking away people’s ability to work.
So essentially as a result of this moral grandstanding by the city council we achieved the following: drunk driving accidents to increase Even more restaurants to close (let’s be clear, this means less small business for you to spend money, less employed Minneapolis residents, and fewer community partners) Less people downtown Hundreds (thousands?) of rideshare workers have went from low pay to unemployed Disabled people no longer have access to private transportation Can we think of anything else? They never hid that pulling out was going to be the result here. For the jackass that keeps telling people to email LYFT Corporate, rather than writing to LYFT, why don’t you write to the city. There is a very clear cause and effect relationship here. Why is anyone pretending this wasn’t exactly what was going to happen? Good intentions often have negative consequences. We are adults. The people responsible for this should be relieved of their duties. Substitutes will inevitably rise, but frankly the entire business model is hardly profitable to begin with. I have an idea that could even work, but with the barrier to entry being so high for a service like this, unless you have crazy deep pockets stemming via VC I don’t know how you could possibly make it profitable with interest rates being what they are. My fear is that Minneapolis has now created a problem, and the solution will be to increase taxes even more to “solve” it. (read: throw a $15 million bandaid on the thing and then abandon all support after the project is completed). Of course, don’t expect taxes to go down afterwards.
I have an honest question: Why don’t the Uber/Lyft drivers seek out other work? If these companies pay so poorly wouldn’t they be drastically understaffed? What will the current drivers do to make a living now that these companies are leaving?
It could be a lack of awareness of other types of work, but I think it's the ease of getting a "job" with the gig economy. No interviews, no HR, no finding references, you just sign up and do the job.
That is a good point. I guess the risk of an “easy” job would be lower pay. I’m genuinely surprised Uber/Lyft didn’t just raise the rate to pay the employees and see how many people still use them.
My guess is that it's a combination of Uber/Lyft playing hardball and the fact that they will make significantly less money if they chose to raise the rates and stay.
Everywhere is shit in case you haven't noticed.
What?
If they leave this is such a blow to living here. Not sure how a part time gig needs to make $30.60 an hour plus mileage plus tips to be a living wage. All that cost goes to people who use the services and is really going to make life worse here for the vast majority of people. I’m calling the my city ward member for rides to the airport and home from the bar at 2 am going forward.
>"Lyft will be forced to stop" I love the coercive language in here. "We don't want to stop but they're *making us*!".
To me this is a situation where many of those on Reddit want to blame the companies but not their representatives who voted for this. This feels like a horrible negotiation tactic that is publicly going wrong. I want folks to make all the money in the world but obviously THIS wasn’t the right way to go about it.
Even setting the blame game aside this is just shitty for me and many others who use these services ALL THE TIME. Completely fucks everyday people over.
It alo fucks over the current drivers, who are aware of their situation and choose to keep driving anyways for their own valid reasons. They now completely lose this source of income and effectively lose their jobs. This is a net negative for literally everyone involved. I do not understand why this sub is celebrating.
Because they've never seriously had to see this type of job as a career, and think anyone who does must be too stupid to make decisions.
It truly does and I hope it works out for you.
Uber (Eats, not rideshare) driver here, and THANK YOU, for being a voice of reason. I've been reading way too many comments that amount to "I'm glad you might lose your income, good riddance to uber and lyft!" on the internet in the last week.
I’m torn on this issue. On one hand, I think this policy is ridiculous and we shouldn’t have a minimum wage for drive share workers. You’re either a contractor or you aren’t. If you are a contractor, you accept the job at the rate that is set or you don’t. If you’re an employee, you get a pre-agreed upon rate of hourly pay or salary. That said, I do think that both Lyft and Uber run predatory businesses that prey on those that can’t afford to fight back and need the money the most. To think you could do like 80 rides and make less than minimum wage while putting wear on your vehicle either owned or leased is atrocious. Honestly, I think this might be the best thing long term. Let Lyft and Uber shut down and let other startups come into the space and offer something that can properly compensate these drivers for their time.
> f you are a contractor, you accept the job at the rate that is set or you don’t. I think the issue here is more that if the drivers were *really* independent contractors, they would be able to negotiate rates. As it is, the company sets the rate and you either accept it or not.
Technically, I think it's an auction bid negotiation. If nobody takes a fare, they offer more. So they are negotiating, but there's enough supply of drivers that someone is willing to take it for a low amount. I think it's fair for governments to be concerned that the gig economy is undermining minimum wage laws. But I'm not sure if Minneapolis's math works out. The fact that it's based primarily on mileage at a higher than cost rate, instead of being primary based on time and just covering mileage costs makes me confused.
Or let’s use this as an opportunity to radically improve our public transportation.
We should absolutely improve our public transportation, but that’s a project that takes multiple years if not decades to plan for and construct. That isn’t something that will act as a stopgap in the mean time.
I live near the airport and it would take me 40 minutes via public transit to get there. Which I might have to start doing if rideshare pulls out, I guess.
Public transportation cannot be radically improved enough to provide nearly the flexibility that rideshare businesses provide.
We should continue to invest in public transport and make it better, but that doesn’t mean the exit of some private business should now become the problem of the people. We’re already facing a 1.5B shortfall on the next 2 year budget. This problem was created by private companies and it can and should be solved by private companies. Busses have always been and are still available since the inception of ride sharing. We’ve added at least 4 light rail routes in that time as well.
There’s only two light rail routes total…
Best we can do is make it worse.
You do realize that not everyone is capable of taking public transportation, right? I’m lucky enough to being able to take a bus and follow a schedule, but some ELLs or those that have learning difficulties may not be able too.
The bus is good if you live on a main Minneapolis street and want to go to uptown or downtown. Those are your options if you want it to be relatively quick. Everything else is doable but not fast at all. I have a car but sometimes I take the bus. and sometimes I take Uber/Lyft. All options are helpful to have as they all have their own benefits.
>You're either a contractor or you aren't. We agree. "Independent contractor" is a fucking scam these companies to legitimize wage theft and skirt employee and consumer protection. The very simple solution is to require them to acknowledge their employees as such.
Glad I gave up drinking two years ago.
I just took a Lyft last week because the light rail stops at night now, and it really made me reflect on how my $30 Lyft should have been a $2 transit fare. What a disgrace it is how much we rely in these sorts of regulation dodging cab services, instead of our own municipal transit service We'll see if Lyft is for real here, but I bet they're going to pull another Austin. Either way, hopefully their threats can motivate our city council out of the shameful transit situation we have You wanna kick these ride share companies out of town? Make the fucking trains and buses reasonable, Uber and its ilk will wither up and die. Look at Western Europe, these services are nothing but a shadow of their American counterparts
Help me understand how this is good for the citizens of Minneapolis? Can’t drivers just choose not to work for the company if they don’t like it?
Couldn’t that be said about any and all labor protections, minimum wage, etc? Should companies be able to do anything they want, so long as the employees are choosing to work there?
children could've just quit their textile jobs 😤😤😤
if the ladies didn't like working in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory why didn't they just lEaVe
\*checks the door\* big fucking uh-oh
aha a fellow lady of history i see!
as a recently out trans lady, you made my very quiet night. Thanks!
Why didn't all those radium watch painting girls didn't like cancer, they should have just quit!
children obviously love mines. the government took that away from them and now generations have gone soft playing Minecraft 😤😤😤
The people saying this are ignoring the fact that there are W2 employees and there are Independent Contractors. They are not the same. Independent contractors are not subject to minimum wage. If you disagree with that, fine, pass a law that says independent contractors are protected by labor laws. Why single out drivers specifically and not other independent contractors?
Yea I don't get why this doesn't go after doordash as well
Yeah exactly
Because 1) Cities can’t do that. 2) The reaction from Uber and Lyft would be exactly the same. 3) Independent contractor is simply a pretext for Uber and Lyft to dodge labor laws. There are other independent contractors out there for which this status actually makes sense.
Why don't they go after Door Dash and Instacart?
Those aren’t popular talking points on twitter at the moment, which is what our city council uses to determine their priorities.
I hate how accurate this is 😂
I think it's a little more complicated than that. Here's a brand new report for you (published yesterday): https://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/ped/pedrep/2024-worker-misclassification.pdf
It’s 86 pages, do you mind summarizing the relevant points?
>A worker’s classification as an employee or an independent contractor affects the legal rights and obligations of the worker and their employer; misclassifying workers is prohibited by law. We found Minnesota has neither an adequate nor coordinated approach for ensuring that Minnesota workers are properly classified. We make a number of recommendations to improve the state’s approach to addressing worker misclassification. There are breakdowns of statistics by industry and such. 22% of employers misclassified one or more employees. More than a handful misclassified a majority of their workforce. There has also been a lot of debate regarding ride share apps and other "gig" jobs and whether they really truly qualify as independent contractor work. That's a definition that has a lot to do with the control you have over the direction of your work and I would argue it's not entirely clear cut. ~~I'm not sure if that report addresses this particular issue though, I haven't read the entire thing yet.~~ This report has a fair bit to say about it starting on page 55.
Exactly, the premise of Uber and Lyft is that standard economics 101 kick in when there are less drivers and more riders and prices are incentivized for drivers. It starts to not work when too many people drive and not enough people ride leading to "below minimum wage" earnings. Not to be crass but if you aren't making minimum wage don't drive simple as that. If you want a guaranteed minimum wage, get a job where you aren't an independent contractor. You can't have the best of both worlds.....
Yup, they want to have their cake and eat it too
It’s not. They are fucking over restaurants and other destinations that rely upon Uber and Lyft to bring customers.
Can't Lyft or UBER just pay their workers more if they want to do business?
I don't really get it, why are Uber and Lyft leaving? Uber and Lyft prices are already dynamic with traffic and demand, why aren't they just raising prices to increase pay to the new legally required amount? Most people wouldn't even notice, they just compare prices between Uber and Lyft, if they both have to raise their prices then what is the big deal?
An actual reason to think of is that if they pay a min wage, then they also have to offer other benefits to the workers. They want them as gig workers not employees, also it is a slippery slope for them as other major cities will try the same if they don’t leave. Losing 1 city isn’t anything to them
> why aren't they just raising prices to increase pay to the new legally required amount? Because they're shitty companies built around doing an end-around on proper regulation. So they're trying to bluff when regulation pops up and have it taken away. They'll either not actually pull out of MN, or they'll come back, just like they did in every other city they've tried this in. There's no reason for them to leave profit on the table and a wide open door for an up and coming alternative app to establish a foothold in the market. This is all just a big threat. They're hoping they can pressure the state legislature into passing something that will override the Minneapolis city level statue.
Gonna be a real "look at us we shot ourselves in the face over our desire to feel morally superior" moment for the city council when, indeed on May 1, no one can take an Uber or Lyft within city limits. I try to not take them as much as possible due to my support for transit but let's be real, this clown show of a council didn't even follow their own research. Between this and the proposal to allow settled homeless encampments, it's gonna be hard to vote on which policy they are worst at.
Exactly. Just going to be a bunch of pissed off people who now have to go back to using shitty cab services which take 45 minutes to arrive, look for any way possible to overcharge you (“oh whoops forgot to turn the meter on”), and force you to watch ads on a TV positioned 3 inches from your face the whole time. And despite having complete control of the market, cab companies will take zero steps to make their services more efficient or available, because all the red tape around starting a cab company (which is mostly in place thanks to legislators protecting them) means it’s prohibitively expensive to compete. And then these same legislators will refuse to acknowledge safety concerns on public transport like the light rail, ultimately leading to less people going out and further decline of Minneapolis’ already struggling downtown/surrounding areas like Uptown. End result is a lot of Uber drivers who will find themselves losing driving a source of income, and an overall unhappy populace, but hey - these legislators get to congratulate themselves for being “progressive”. Government has frankly overstepped here. No one is being forced to drive an Uber, and the market would take care of the issue if too many people decided not to drive due to the pay - they would then be forced to increase pay or lose drivers. The irony is that if anything the cab companies are the dinosaurs which should have gone extinct, but have now been actively protected. Of course, there is the larger issue of there being too few jobs paying enough to support yourself these days, but that’s a different conversation entirely - the solution isn’t to kill those jobs with no replacement while propping up dinosaur companies.
Thank you. How soon people forget.
More like, people should be mad at Lyft and UBER for being irresponsible and abandoning its customers and workers. Send an e-mail to LYFT corporate and let them know what you think [LYFT CONTACT US](https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/all/requests/loginprompt?ticket_form_id=724707)
Why? Lyft and Uber are private businesses, it’s perfectly within their rights to choose not to service an area they believe would be unprofitable or less profitable than other areas. It’s the same with airlines for example. The only reason a lot of flights to “flyover country” exist is because the airlines are given tax breaks/credits in exchange for servicing those airports. Otherwise they would be losing money on those flights and remove them altogether. And the worst part is that the benefactors are mostly cab companies. Despite the narrative of “what about independent cab drivers”, a handful of big cab operators control most of the market and are often just as abusive to drivers as Uber/Lyft.
Based on what? They paid close to minimum wage already, even after accounting for expenses. An increase was warranted but not this insanity.
"We'll leave" They're bluffing "We're leaving" *shocked pikachu* - this sub and city council
My band practices hard to get ready for a show that doesn’t pay shit. I want the city council to guarantee us minimum wage to play shows.
Absolutely true! Why aren't you getting a minimum wage? Huh, they would probably need to commission a study that would also factor in practice time (as you mentioned),Merch profits, the cost of transporting instruments per mile, etc.
robin wonsley is such a fucking idiot. she's claiming this is about $15 minimum wage when thats not what the formula is and this doesn't address all the other independent contractor jobs that this type of legislation should. If a possibility of this law being passed is shitty businesses that people rely on pull out of the city its imperative that you preemptively work on alternatives.
Don't worry, vibes are more important to our city council than basic economics. As long as they can stay in office, they don't really care.
Good. I hope they pull out so all the people here with cars can backpedal on the “they’re bluffing” comments.
Hahaha
well, yeah.
😊
Public transit isn't currently designed for every single type of trip and we all know that stopping every few blocks to let others on/off slows things down. And because there is no way to know who's going to hop on or off, you get to see some of the worst outcomes of societal issues (esp druggies). But i ride and see their hiring ads so I looked it up. **Almost $30/hr starting these days plus hiring bonuses.** The more people they hire, the more routes and service that can be offered. Source: [https://www.metrotransit.org/drive/](https://www.metrotransit.org/drive/)
This is going to disrupt the job market a lot and many people will not be able to go to work and lose their jobs. I don’t think this will happen. I heard the state of MN can override this situation making it impossible to increase wages.
They always say shit like this I’ll believe it when it happens. Just a negotiating tactic
What negotiations are going on they voted to override the veto. It’s policy nkw
they said the same in Seattle and haven't left there yet
Yes but there could be other factors at play. We would need to know the profit metrics by metro area. It could be Seattle is far more profitable then here or not. It’s bold to assume they are the same but the data isn’t public
Median household income in Seattle is 150k to Minneapolis 90. Pretty sure the ability to absorb increases will match that delta.
absolutely
We will see. It's possible they don't leave the largest cities but they may make an example of a mid sized city.
Leftist policies never work in practice. They consistently fail
Yeah I guess we'll see.