@@tipyouintheapp true they only first buy the ones that threaten them and they ask the ones that are too weak to compete to join them easy evil villain stuff
They are a duopoly in CA! They got together and wrote their own labor law thru a ballot measure/Prop 22 in 2020 and it was upheld by the State Supreme Court so it will only be replaced if these companies are broken up or made to change thru oversight and watchdog groups. I drove someone home from the airport on Lyft yesterday. I got paid $22 and pax paid $54! True story in 2000 I took a taxi from Mission Viejo CA to LAX. It was $95. Today 25 years later UBER offers the same ride for $90! Therein lies the problem. PAY is HORRIBLE
The first household refrigerator was introduced in 1913. They cost between $500 and $1000. That's $16,061.02 to $32,122.04 presently adjusted for inflation. Do mass market refrigerators cost this much? No. And today's refrigerators are larger, more durable, less noisy, and include features that only existed in the minds of science fiction writers 110 years ago. You also don't have to defrost them periodically. In the long run prices often decrease as many aspects of the product improve. Uber didn't exist in 2009. What did exist was a highly regulated system that restricted the number of taxis serving the market and prices set by the government. This is called market distortion and it worked against the consumers' interests and in favour of those sold a taxi franchise. At the time of your 2000 taxi ride, nine taxi franchises operated 2303 taxis in Los Angeles. In order to operate a taxi in Los Angeles at the time, one must have a franchise agreement with the City and each specific vehicle was required to be separately permitted by the Taxicab Commission. The New York Times reported on 13 Jan 2020: 'Los Angeles limits the number of cabs to 2,364 vehicles - a pittance compared to the city's 100,000-plus Ubers and Lyfts.' Clearly the consumer demand for taxis was greater than 2303 allowed (43 times higher or more if we use the number of Uber/Lyft operators driving 20 years later as an imperfect proxy for demand), yet the supply was distorted by the government and then to address the government-caused distortion the government further distorted the market by price fixing.
Levi, absolutely respect your content. I have a much different on the monopoly question. Uber has accumulated losses of nearly $32 Billion, with only one profitable year (2023) and then back to losses. The issue that rideshare has is autonomy. This presents an insurmountable hurdle as Tesla is about to enter the market with trip rates lower than that of public transportation with the personalized service of rideshare. This will be the rate at which Uber, Lyft, Waymo, and Cruise will have to meet to be competitive. This is a paradigm shift where the old rules, no loner apply (think pre-internet vs post-internet) Tesla has an unassailable lead in autonomy and will likely prove to be an extinction event for rideshare as we know it. This will begin in earnest in the 1st quarter of 2025. The walls are closing in with regard to rideshare being driver operated. We have approximately 3-4 years before drivers are fully displaced
Uber is not a monopoly because you can take a bus. Is this guy serious? Being a monopoly is not illegal but acting a way that you can unfairly use your monopoly to have a unfair advantage is illegal. Example : Uber giving low fares to passengers that taxis can not compete is illegal. Also there is no set percentage of the market control a company needs to be a monopoly.
Uber flaunts the government calling its drivers independent contractors while simultaneously treating drivers like employees. A true independent contractor sets their own rates. Uber routinely threatens drivers for high cancel/acceptance rates and unfairly deactivates drivers violating contractor status. Uber is absolutely a monopoly but only from the drivers point of view. Drivers enjoy no government wage protections or benefits and are at the sole mercy of Uber for any wage irregularities or errors. When things go wrong the driver is $#*t out of luck and there is no resolution thanks in part to forced arbitration.
@@tipyouintheapp There is no argument for your position. I think you did the best you could. Problem is, it's an indefensible position. I think your examples are a cop out to give credence to your overwhelming position of keeping the government out. I agree Uber is not a monopoly. However, they broke FTC anti-trust rules a long time ago by using price to bankrupt cabs across the country. SO they were guilty of that long ago, and now, in the RIDESHARE market, they have what is very close to a monopoly, but probably defensible in court. I am curious what your acceptance rate is. Mine is 17%. What we need, is people like you to stop taking trips that don't pay, so they are forced to raise rates. You admitted it yourself, "I'm still going to take it." You just gave them your worth. When they started offering me reservations below what I thought was fare, I stopped taking them. Let someone else earn it, that's fine. It's principle. In some cases I take them to convert them to riders in my private company, so in that case it's marketing, not a loss to me. I feel like you would rather allow a predatory company to hurt millions of people to back your assertion that the government is always bad. The government is good, when it's not owned and directed by the corporations. If we don't stand up to them and use what little leverage we have, we all lose. I think you will find after a month of saying no to the garbage rides, they will start offering you more again. That was my experience. I think that is how the A.I. works. And yes, we need a higher barrier to entry for drivers.
The fact that Uber buys out their competitors should make them a monopoly
They haven’t bought out every alternative.
@@tipyouintheapp true they only first buy the ones that threaten them and they ask the ones that are too weak to compete to join them easy evil villain stuff
If you don’t think so look at how they move in other countries that don’t have antitrust laws and you’ll see the pattern it’s simple
It's a monopoly in people's mind when they consider rideshare
I agree.
They are a duopoly in CA! They got together and wrote their own labor law thru a ballot measure/Prop 22 in 2020 and it was upheld by the State Supreme Court so it will only be replaced if these companies are broken up or made to change thru oversight and watchdog groups. I drove someone home from the airport on Lyft yesterday. I got paid $22 and pax paid $54! True story in 2000 I took a taxi from Mission Viejo CA to LAX. It was $95. Today 25 years later UBER offers the same ride for $90! Therein lies the problem. PAY is HORRIBLE
Same is true in New York.
when you say pax paid $54, what is pax?
@@garylivingston144 passenger
The first household refrigerator was introduced in 1913. They cost between $500 and $1000. That's $16,061.02 to $32,122.04 presently adjusted for inflation. Do mass market refrigerators cost this much? No. And today's refrigerators are larger, more durable, less noisy, and include features that only existed in the minds of science fiction writers 110 years ago. You also don't have to defrost them periodically. In the long run prices often decrease as many aspects of the product improve.
Uber didn't exist in 2009. What did exist was a highly regulated system that restricted the number of taxis serving the market and prices set by the government. This is called market distortion and it worked against the consumers' interests and in favour of those sold a taxi franchise. At the time of your 2000 taxi ride, nine taxi franchises operated 2303 taxis in Los Angeles. In order to operate a taxi in Los Angeles at the time, one must have a franchise agreement with the City and each specific vehicle was required to be separately permitted by the Taxicab Commission. The New York Times reported on 13 Jan 2020: 'Los Angeles limits the number of cabs to 2,364 vehicles - a pittance compared to the city's 100,000-plus Ubers and Lyfts.'
Clearly the consumer demand for taxis was greater than 2303 allowed (43 times higher or more if we use the number of Uber/Lyft operators driving 20 years later as an imperfect proxy for demand), yet the supply was distorted by the government and then to address the government-caused distortion the government further distorted the market by price fixing.
Levi, absolutely respect your content. I have a much different on the monopoly question. Uber has accumulated losses of nearly $32 Billion, with only one profitable year (2023) and then back to losses. The issue that rideshare has is autonomy. This presents an insurmountable hurdle as Tesla is about to enter the market with trip rates lower than that of public transportation with the personalized service of rideshare. This will be the rate at which Uber, Lyft, Waymo, and Cruise will have to meet to be competitive. This is a paradigm shift where the old rules, no loner apply (think pre-internet vs post-internet) Tesla has an unassailable lead in autonomy and will likely prove to be an extinction event for rideshare as we know it. This will begin in earnest in the 1st quarter of 2025. The walls are closing in with regard to rideshare being driver operated. We have approximately 3-4 years before drivers are fully displaced
I totally agree with you about Tesla and robotaxi! Just released a video about it.
Current NY State law prevents autonomous vehicles
Uber is not a monopoly because you can take a bus. Is this guy serious? Being a monopoly is not illegal but acting a way that you can unfairly use your monopoly to have a unfair advantage is illegal.
Example : Uber giving low fares to passengers that taxis can not compete is illegal. Also there is no set percentage of the market control a company needs to be a monopoly.
Uber isn't a monopoly. In fact, it's position in the marketplace is perilous, so much so that Uber may not be in business in 10 years.
Uber flaunts the government calling its drivers independent contractors while simultaneously treating drivers like employees. A true independent contractor sets their own rates. Uber routinely threatens drivers for high cancel/acceptance rates and unfairly deactivates drivers violating contractor status.
Uber is absolutely a monopoly but only from the drivers point of view. Drivers enjoy no government wage protections or benefits and are at the sole mercy of Uber for any wage irregularities or errors. When things go wrong the driver is $#*t out of luck and there is no resolution thanks in part to forced arbitration.
I disagree. We have wage protection in New York and all that’s done is lower my earnings.
The only time I made real good money was after Omicron Feb 2022 to June 2022.
Your private ride business is the right way to go.
The weakest argument ever.
What could I have done to make it stronger?
@@tipyouintheapp There is no argument for your position. I think you did the best you could. Problem is, it's an indefensible position. I think your examples are a cop out to give credence to your overwhelming position of keeping the government out. I agree Uber is not a monopoly. However, they broke FTC anti-trust rules a long time ago by using price to bankrupt cabs across the country. SO they were guilty of that long ago, and now, in the RIDESHARE market, they have what is very close to a monopoly, but probably defensible in court.
I am curious what your acceptance rate is. Mine is 17%. What we need, is people like you to stop taking trips that don't pay, so they are forced to raise rates. You admitted it yourself, "I'm still going to take it." You just gave them your worth. When they started offering me reservations below what I thought was fare, I stopped taking them. Let someone else earn it, that's fine. It's principle. In some cases I take them to convert them to riders in my private company, so in that case it's marketing, not a loss to me.
I feel like you would rather allow a predatory company to hurt millions of people to back your assertion that the government is always bad. The government is good, when it's not owned and directed by the corporations. If we don't stand up to them and use what little leverage we have, we all lose. I think you will find after a month of saying no to the garbage rides, they will start offering you more again. That was my experience. I think that is how the A.I. works. And yes, we need a higher barrier to entry for drivers.