• About
  • Contact
  • Editorial
  • Policies
  • Archives
Angry Bear
Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.
  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics
« Back

Open thread June 21, 2019

Dan Crawford | June 21, 2019 7:45 am

Tags: open thread Comments (2) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
2 Comments
  • Denis Drew says:
    June 21, 2019 at 12:34 pm

    Uber subsidizing 40% of fare. To break even Uber would have to raise prices overall 66% (40 down = 66 up). That would not include anything for the drivers — just cancel Uber’s red ink.

    For drivers to get their 20% of a cancel-red-ink fare increase, 66% would have to reflect 80% of the overall raise. 66% divided by 4 = 16.5%. 66% + 16.5% = 82.5% fare increase.
    * * * * * *

    Surge pricing would have to be lower — leading to higher overall pricing — assuming Uber could hold on to its entire customer base — I leave it to your imagination.

    Uber’s Path of Destruction
    By Hubert Horan
    https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/05/ubers-path-of-destruction/

    “Most taxi demand is low-income; higher fares would shrink traf­fic and reduce utilization. Taxi demand is sociologically bipolar: 55 percent of demand comes from people earning less than $40,000 per year while 35 percent comes from people earning more than $100,000.10 Demand from lower-income people is driven by access to jobs in areas (or at times of day) when transit service is poor or non­existent. Given the current income distribution of riders, any at­tempt to balance supply and de­mand will either drive lower-in­come passengers out of the market or result in wealthy customers being charged less than they might be willing to pay. Uber does not have the lower cost structure needed to improve service while keep­ing fares low, and apparently realizes that only a small portion of the market is willing to pay fares that would cover the true cost of its service. Higher prices would also reduce vehicle utilization and de­stroy any notion that Uber’s busi­ness has exceptional growth poten­tial.”

    All of which means Uber may have no prospects of becoming a decent paying employer — no matter how much the American labor market changes.

    Only 4% of Uber drivers remain on the platform a year later

    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/20/only-4-percent-of-uber-drivers-remain-after-a-year-says-report.html

  • Denis Drew says:
    June 23, 2019 at 5:01 pm

    Come to think of it: these numbers prove that Uber couldn’t stay afloat ever if they didn’t have to pay drivers — but they will have to have human-watch drivers even in driverless cars — at least for many years — at minimum wage. Ha!

Featured Stories

It is not the economics,

Ken Melvin

Marine Drones, Jamming and Full Frontal Nudity

Robert Waldmann

Review of “Independent People” by Halldór Laxness.

Joel Eissenberg

We’re Happy, Free, Confused, and Lonely at the Same Time

Ken Houghton

Contributors

Dan Crawford
Robert Waldmann
Barkley Rosser
Eric Kramer
ProGrowth Liberal
Daniel Becker
Ken Houghton
Linda Beale
Mike Kimel
Steve Roth
Michael Smith
Bill Haskell
NewDealdemocrat
Ken Melvin
Sandwichman
Peter Dorman
Kenneth Thomas
Bruce Webb
Rebecca Wilder
Spencer England
Beverly Mann
Joel Eissenberg

Subscribe

Blogs of note

    • Naked Capitalism
    • Atrios (Eschaton)
    • Crooks and Liars
    • Wash. Monthly
    • CEPR
    • Econospeak
    • EPI
    • Hullabaloo
    • Talking Points
    • Calculated Risk
    • Infidel753
    • ACA Signups
    • The one-handed economist
Angry Bear
Copyright © 2023 Angry Bear Blog

Topics

  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics
  • US/Global Economics
  • Taxes/regulation
  • Healthcare
  • Law
  • Politics
  • Climate Change
  • Social Security
  • Hot Topics

Pages

  • About
  • Contact
  • Editorial
  • Policies
  • Archives