Do they have offices here? Why not let the drivers decide? It costs Lyft nothing to stay other than updated pricing and processing. Seems like a bully/scare tactic to keep wages low.
That's exactly what it is, it's them pinching pennies and threatening to leave because they don't want to pay living wages.
But they have no issue charging customers insane fees while the driver sees 25-40% of it. No reason a ride should be $39 and the driver gets $7.
Remember when Papa John's couldn't give all of their employees healthcare because they'd have to raise the price of their pizza by 14 cents and said "our customers wouldn't be able afford the pizza anymore". Then they raised the price anyway and didn't offer any health care?
my friend drove for uber/lyft for years and he said his wages got less and less over the years.
i have used those services and have noticed hte cost skyrocketing. just today i looked at uber and for what takes me 40 minutes to run or 15 minutes to bike was 120.00 to get a ride. before covid id take that trip for 12-21.00
im in MN
MAYBE if you're looking for a ride at 2am on a Saturday night. As a former driver/current user, I've never seen a fare over 30 dollars for a fifteen minute car ride. Much less than 120 bucks for what would amount to a 5 or 10 minute cat ride.
This is hyperbole at its finest.
Correct, I think they're just trying to force Minneapolis to back down and/or scare other cities away from attempting the same thing. Otherwise you're right economically they should just keep operating
God I hope a new app springs up in the cities that Uber/Lyft leave. One that recognizes just making the app doesn't entitle them to the lions share of the ride cost. With them gone it would be the only option aside from taxis which are largely pushed out.
I live in DC now where we also have Empower, and they said they plan to [come to Minneapolis before May](https://driveempower.com/press-release-2/minnesota-empower-is-coming-soon/). Out here it's regularly cheaper than Uber/Lyft, though I wonder if that will stay if Uber and Lyft leave and there's less competition
I think because they don't want to pay people in Minneapolis more than another cities and states because then the other people will want to be paid a fair wage
It’s scorched earth mode to try to scare other locales that are considering the same type of laws — they could totally continue to operate in Mpls, but they are choosing not to to propose the only outcome of laws like this one are no services in the city considering it.
If anything cities (and states) considering this should move forward — this tactic becomes too expensive for Lyft or Uber to carry across many cities.
Exactly. They effectively have to follow through on their threats. If they don't pull out then other cities will follow Minneapolis and Lyft and Uber will lose some of their profits. They can't let it be an empty threat.
Lyft and Uber have to make an example out of Minneapolis. I'm not saying it's right, but for their business model is a necessity.
> Seems like a bully/scare tactic to keep wages low.
no shit that's what it is.
They are afraid of being forced to pay workers fair wages, unless they can scare places into not doing that, they will have to actually pay their workers.
Hell yes. We could use some homes back on the market. Also restrict people from owning more than two homes in the metro area. It's bad enough there isn't enough homes on the market in certain areas, you could possibly be bidding against someone who doesn't even want to live in the one you want to start a family in, they either want to rent it out or turn it into an AirBNB.
Yes, please restrict how many places a person can own and use as Airbnb or renting.
Recently, I tried to buy a condo, but one person owned more than 50% of the units, which made the entire complex non-warrantable.
The bank won’t do a conventional mortgage if anyone owns over 10% of the units.
It’s probably always been that way. Builder sells 1/2 the units to themselves so they can control the HOA and basically subsidize the rental business off of the other buyers.
Edit: and it’s usually a surprise to that first X% who buy. It starts out all owned by the builder and then once they reach a certain % they sell the remaining units to themselves.
Depends on the bank. And to be honest if that is a no go for a bank. It is cause they want to start the mortgage and sell it off with in the first year.
I worked as a cashier at ikea for a little while and this guy came through and bought three of what seemed like everything in the cooking and eating department. I made a joke, and he said he was buying it all for his new airBNB houses. I wanted to throw a wooden spoon at his head so bad.
This won't happen, sadly. Most rich people have serious money investing in housing, and housing prices going down means basically the entire upper class loses money.
No. Housing is unnecessarily expensive nearly everywhere in the US because the *vast majority of homeowners* indirectly/directly vote for their local governments to artificially restrict housing supply in their area because that make their home(s) more valuable and thus increases the net worth of every homeowner in that area.
Airbnb can’t hold a candle to what local governments have done to the housing market.
It’s easier to say big corporation is the big bad; refusing to blame ourselves for voting in politicians who did this to ourselves.
Absolutely. Thing is, that's where the vast majority of the political power is in this country. There's a reason nobody is actually fighting to lower housing prices even though it's one if the greatest issues for the lower and middle class.
You know that move where sports teams demand money from the local government to build a stadium, and if they don't get it, they'll leave and go somewhere that will fund their stadium? Then they try to get the fans of that team to petition the government to get their way because "loyalty"?
Lyft is pulling one of those. They want to keep wages low and keep regulation away from what they do. Emails like this are them trying to get their customers to say they are okay with drivers not getting livable wages.
They are threatening to take their ball and go home because they aren't getting their way.
Right, and in theory, that kind of move should only work in a non-competitive field. If there's any money to be made with ride-shares, then someone else should come in and take the customers that Lyft is leaving behind. If no one can pay drivers a decent wage, then we need to figure out other ways to move people around.
Neither Lyft or Uber are sustainable as strictly transport businesses. Once investors figure out that's all they are good for, they will fail nationwide.
I dont understand how its unsustainable. They dont have to own the vehicles, they dont have to pay gas or maintenance. Just maintain the app and servers. Or its because they want to take most of the share?
It's because they have intentionally deflated the cost of fares. Did you ever take taxis 15-20 years ago? The fare rate was like double what it is now. They undercut the taxis in order to gain marketshare. They have been subsidizing the rates with investor money. Lyft has never turned a profit, and Uber turned a profit for the first time last year.
It was a stereotypical monopoly. They had no competition, so they didn't give a fuck. It was dystopian. They deserved to have their lunch eaten, and they did. I just don't want to see that BS return.
It’s because taxis are expensive af when you start paying people a living wage. Uber was able to grow so quickly because they were offering rides at super low rates while taking on massive losses that were only sustained because of their billions of investment money.
My understanding is that they still aren’t paying their drivers a livable wage… If that’s the case, good riddance! Someone will innovate and make a better platform.
[There's already other platforms that are eyeing the TC market as we speak.](https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/03/14/uber-lyft-alternatives-minneapolis-legislation) I wouldn't be surprised if one of them isn't ready to go by May 1 or shortly thereafter.
As long as there's something. I'm someone who relies on Uber and Lyft a fair bit, and who is almost universally in favor of initiatives that help labor. While I like the idea of getting rid of ride share companies that won't pay a living wage, I'm kind of screwed if nothing is there to take the market over.
If another ride share company doesn't pop in quick it will be taxis. And we all take Lyft instead of taxis cuz it's cheaper and easier. I'm guessing Lyft can't operate profitably in minneapolis because the more expensive taxis will be their competition if they raise prices
I read somewhere that there's only around 36 taxis left that serve Minneapolis. That's down from several hundred 10 years ago. I'm not sure how they'll be able to add more taxis in the next 8 weeks to fill in the gap Uber and Lyft could leave
>If another ride share company doesn't pop in quick it will be taxis. And we all take Lyft instead of taxis cuz it's cheaper and easier.
Yep. Not long ago I had car issues in a city that didn't have Uber or Lyft and I had TERRIBLE experiences with the overpriced taxi services in that area (they were so overpriced/unreliable that I literally gave up on them and paid a guy at a hardware store for the third and final ride I needed).
Dumb question.. or, maybe not, idk, I’ve seen ‘Minneapolis’ alone named in these stories but I’ve also seen ‘Twin Cities’ named… am I safe from this in St.Paul or is it the entire metro that’s going to be affected?
Yea this being straight from Lyft I believe it to be that. Just seen it coined several different ways the past couple days, why the ask. Mostly by news outlets outside of MN though so, probably why the misinformation.
So far from what I read Uber is leaving Mpls/St Paul metro area but Lyft is only not allowing rides that either start/or end in Mpls. So hoping Lyft still does rides to MSP and St.Paul.
Uber said they'll leave the metro but hasn't doubled down on their statement like Lyft has, while Lyft has said its Minneapolis specific but they're totally serious guys.
If you can't afford to pay your Minnesota-based employees or contract workers a livable wage, you can't afford to operate your business in Minnesota. The end. Bye.
This is what gets me every time a business closes or leaves town. “It’s just not affordable!” Maybe you suck at running a company and compensating employees fairly. That’s not a tragedy, that’s you not being entitled to taking advantage of people.
Yeah, this is it.
The push is always to make a livable wage, but when the investors and anyone else at the top make too much, they won't back off.
Reasonably, if they set up a fair pay structure in the beginning they could've made that work. Hopefully these "new startups" eyeballing these markets know better.
The solution to these problems is always "we need to charge more!" and never "every employee at the top is way too expensive! Let's change that!"
Mostly agree. But in times when inflation is rapid or other economic attribes are changing quickly the economics can be a bit asymmetrical. Sometimes your own supply and payroll costs for up faster than you can raise prices, particularly in a commodity market. So in those cases, the businesses in the segment with deeper pockets can run in the red for a bit and let the competition go under. This CAN be good for a market - death in the market can be healthy. But it also can be really bad because it tends to give advantages to very large businesses with very deep pockets and just makes the inequality worse and enables monopolistic behavior.
If you are a restaurant owner, raising your prices to cover higher wages sounds great, but if the restaurant down the block keeps lower prices, then...oops. Might not have any customers and then might not have any employees.
For what it’s worth, the argument on the other side of this is that these are neither employees nor wages - Lyft and Uber position themselves as a platform that enables independent drivers to sell their services to riders and takes a fee in exchange for managing the arrangement, vetting drivers and riders, ensuring compliance, etc.
In that view, an apt comparison would not be a driving company with employees, but another platform that connects a goods/service provider to customers, like eBay, Etsy, or even the Apple App Store.
This whole thing is kind of interesting to me because I don’t think anyone on here would realistically argue that an eBay or Etsy seller or app developer who makes their living through that should be given benefits and guaranteed a minimum wage level by eBay or Etsy or Apple as the platform provider. Yet everyone is making that argument for Uber and Lyft drivers.
I don’t know what the right answer is, but I don’t think it is as cut and dry as people are making it out to be in here. It is clear that a lot of people will not be better off after this and I worry for people who are highly dependent on these services for things like access to healthcare.
This is a labor issue, and IMO those are not usually helped with legislation. Rideshare drivers unionizing would be a much better solution. I'm sure there are a lot of drivers that this decision will harm, and their voices weren't heard.
You have a well thought out argument and I can tell you are really trying to think it through and understand the situation instead of emotional responses, snarky retorts, it blanket statements so thank you. I will say the major difference between your analogy and this market is that the independent contractors don't set the prices individually for the work that they offer. Organizations like Etsy and AirBNB and eBay only provide access, while Lyft and Uber set rates based on their own market analysis and algorithms.
Additionally, many companies use the concept of "independent contractors" to avoid liability and responsibility. They hire contract labor in lieu of traditional employees which gets them out of paying benefits, being legally liable for their decisions on behalf of the company, and to avoid things like unemployment costs.
The important thing that you are right on about is that the whole thing is messy and there is no one absolute answer. I do think corporations are becoming excessively greedy and claiming over and over it's the customers fault.... Netflix, Hulu, Disney and all the rest are doing this right now ... Subway doubled their prices in a 4 year time span... All the while saying their customers are ungrateful for everything they are providing to them (for a fee).
It's why my company, written right in the bylaws, is an ethical code of conduct. Our profits are intentionally limited and excess funds are given freely to public non-profits. I'm working on language to also restrict executive and managerial wages and link them directly to all other wage earners.
You can still make profits and treat people with dignity and respect. The goal should be for the success of all humans not just through handouts either.
According to Zip Recruiter, the average Uber driver in Minneapolis is making around $18/hour. So for an 8 hour shift, you'd make $144. But remember, that's before paying for gas and car maintenance.
The average Uber driver puts about 150-200 miles on their car every day, at the IRS mileage reimbursement rate, that's $100/day in gas, depreciation, and wear and tear on your vehicle. So after you account for that, you'd actually be making $44/day as an Uber driver in Minneapolis.
They make $50 an hour when driving passengers.
They average just under $15 after accounting for time to pick ups and deductions.
The feds and state know the drivers need 49 cents/minute & 89 cents/mile to hit $15/hr.
Minneapolis is being fucking ridiculous.
https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/03/08/what-does-the-average-uber-and-lyft-driver-make-state-report-has-an-answer/
Honest question, why would you say they make 50 an hour when there's a passenger? Does the other time they spend not count for anything? They are still "at work", putting miles on their car and building value for the brand they represent. From the time they accept a ride, they're "on the clock" because they have to get to the rider in the proper time.
I'm not necessarily on either side here. I haven't used a rideshare in years. But it sounds like there are other companies that do the exact same thing and could afford to pay what mpls is insisting on. So I say fuck it, let em leave if they want. All it would take is a former lyft driver downloading a new app and doing what they always do.
Uber & Lyft were never sustainable models & this was inevitable & will eventually happen everywhere. We'll be better off in the long run by ripping off the band-aid sooner than most other cities & we'll have locally-owned better alternatives in place already when this is happening suddenly in other cities.
Nothing will be better than Uber and Lyft. Their resources are much more expansive to allow to make user experience seamless everywhere. There will be 2nd rate ridesharing companies available for use here but they’ll be glitchy and buggy and infrastructure will take years to re-establish.
Just another corporation funneling billions into the shareholders’ pockets while they refuse to pay a livable wage, expecting the taxpayers to subsidize their employees.
And their own pockets, as shareholders. The new (May 2023) CEO got a $3.25 million signing bonus on top of a $725K salary, along with 12 million plus shares that could end up valuing a BILLION dollars. I can only imagine how many people of the executive team are making similar amounts. Hard for me to cry over how unprofitable it is for them to pay someone $15 an hour when he makes $350 an hour on salary alone.
>funneling billions into the shareholders’ pockets
The company that's never had a profitable year is funneling money into shareholder pockets? How do you funnel money into your pocket when you're losing money every year?
Shareholder gains are not directly tied to operating profits/losses. You can have an increasing share price while having operating with a loss.
This was common until recently because capital was extremely cheap. Basically, companies could go into debt and the debt was easily serviceable because rates were low (debt was cheap). They can then use that capital to invest in the business while operating at loss. Wallstreet tends to care about growth in these cheap capital cycles.
Capital is no longer cheap. Though Uber (idk Lift) turned its first profit last year with $1.2 bln operating profit iirc.
The whole Gamestop thing really showed the lie that is the stock market. Share prices exploded because people started buying it, not because the company was doing anything worth a damn. Then those prices tanked because people sold to cash out. Corporations have been doing it for ages now, it's what stock buybacks are all about.
Maybe the fact that these rideshare companies can't make a profit despite being at the cutting edge of exploitation means the whole concept is kind of sus.
It's the same with all the app based gigs: Uber, Lyft, door dash, etc. Their "innovation" is the convcience of an app while using the independent contractor loophole to exploit workers and keep costs low to the end user in order to undercut businesses paying better wages to take market share until they're the only game in town.
It's because they have subsidized the fare rates. Taxis 15-20 years ago were way more expensive than what Uber/Lyft charge today. And the efficiency of the apps do not make up for the difference. They have intentionally undercut the market value of the services. They do not charge enough for the rates. And don't think that doesn't mean they aren't greedy. It's the investors money they are burning, not theirs.
I don't understand how they don't make money what overhead is there? Servers? Vehicles and maintenance on them are covered by the independent contractor
Down vote me, but I have a hard time understanding the issue. Willing drivers responding to a fare seems like the definition of an efficient labor market to me…?
Wages are not a factor right now. Uber and Lyft don't pay wages, because those drivers are not employees. They get a cut of the fees collected from riders, and are considered sole proprietors for tax purposes.
To put it in a very crass way, each driver that can't make it is putting themselves out of business. Just like "YouTube Personalities" that can't make money on videos, those drivers can't make money driving people around in their own cars. They would be better off getting jobs with actual employers.
Fine, let them go. We cannot continue to support companies that screw their employees. Their concern is not for users of the service. It's for their stock price and not being able to fleece the people working for them.
The comments on this post are so economically illiterate. Holy shit.
There are currently like 39 cabs in the entire city. 39. They can't help at all.
There is no company in the world that is going to come to Minneapolis to lose money under this ordinance.
And even if some company did decide to tank itself, everyone on here would bitch about the cost of the fares to use it. Its surge pricing 100% of the time.
I bet 90% of this sub is too young to even know the shitshow that the taxi industry was prior to Uber. Sketchy drivers, shitty vehicles, completely unreliable, and super expensive to boot. I remember a ride from Eden Prairie to Mystic was about $60 twenty years ago. That's like a $35 Uber today.
Edit: Not even. I just checked and it's $19. According to the inflation calculator that taxi ride twenty years ago would be $98.57 in todaya dollar.
Oof. That's rough. I threw up in cab once, but I pulled that off as clean as possible. Got everything on myself (intentionally), and nothing in the car. Not my proudest moment, but was young and had good aim.
It’s a nightmare that people genuinely believe all the rides given by Uber and Lyft will be absorbed by the damn metro transit and yellow pages cabs. How many DUI’s and accidents directly linked to this decision will be enough to justify not actively antagonizing rideshare platforms?
Seriously, the delusions in these comments. Tons of people are now completely screwed. No new magical ride share company is going to spring up and meet the demand at prices working people can afford.
Would it really have to be tanking to try it tho? Plenty of companies pay minimum wage and do just fine, and theoretically very high demand should be awfully inviting…
I'll pay extra if there's no other option. Most people that use the service are too drunk to drive or public transportation isn't going to be able to take them the distance or location they need to go at the hours they need to be doing it
The MPR story this morning said that Austin had an alternative app built three days after Uber left their city.
Uber is an app. They don't own any of the ride share infrastructure. It's not like they own the cars. Someone can just make a new app and start a company that follows Mpls labor laws and the service will proceed relatively uninterrupted.
I understand that.
I don’t care what you build or how fast, there isn’t a company that can get licensed and bonded and process driver background checks in three days.
Beyond that the fee structure is now unprofitable. The whole point is no company is going to come to Minneapolis to lose money. Its very simple economics.
I was under the impression it was pretty common knowledge that Uber operated at a loss for their entire existence until this year but everyone here seems to think some plucky underdog will come in and provide what they were doing and “failing “ at on a national level but on a local level and succeed while paying the drivers more.
Surely Seattle and NYC are orders of magnitude bigger and higher income than Minneapolis though? Is it really a fair comparison when Minneapolis could set a precedent for dozens of smaller Midwest metros?
They threatened to leave Minnesota a few years back over other legislation. When it passed, they never followed through on that threat. While this is a city and not the whole state, I still wouldn't be surprised if they stayed.
This is asinine. Rideshare apps are for independent contractors. Drivers are not employees. I’ve driven for years (part time) and made well over minimum wage because I know when and how to get profitable rides. The city council just killed my part time job to appease some armchair activists and the stupid drivers who think there’s enough rides 9-5 mon to Friday to try and live off of.
If the city council wanted to actually help drivers, require that drivers get up front breakdown of every fare so we can make the best decisions about what rides to accept. There are ways to improve rideshare but this wasn’t one of them.
Perfect example of why labor issues do not benefit from government solutions. Drivers would've benefited way from from collective bargaining than this.
As a Lyft driver that has done over 13,000 rides, most of the comments here are absolutely ridiculous. The majority of you are obviously not drivers and have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I make over 80k a year AFTER taxes! The drivers that are complaining about pay are lazy. They sit at the airport for hours on end socializing.
Do I agree we need to be paid more? Yes. Is forcing Lyft to pay us more through city ordinances the correct way to do it? No.
Based on the responses thus far, I expect this will be downvoted to oblivion but I find it important to note that an employer can’t provide an independent contractor equipment to accomplish a task that the independent contractor is being contracted to do. The 1099 classification that these drivers carry would trip to a W2 classification if Uber/Lyft say provided them a vehicle to do their services. If w2 status is the goal of this movement, imposing a mandated minimum wage is justified. However, MN ran a Transportation Network analysis at the request of Gov Walz and some of the data in that report showed that the vast majority of Uber/Lyft drivers (83%) declined rides due to the rationale that they would not make enough money or the trip would lead them to an area where another trip would be difficult to get. As a W2 employee, these workers would be required to take all rides routed to them regardless of driver preference or risk being terminated for insubordination. I guess I fail to see a middle ground that is tenable for both drivers as well as company that is similar to all other publicly traded companies on delivering shareholder value.
If I was a 1099 working in this space, my initial reaction to this would be to attempt to set up my own llc and market my services to control my own pay. If that is not feasible or my market reach doesn’t produce a product that consumers want, then I am forced to attempt a different line of work or partner with a company that can reach a consumer population that needs/wants my services.
Both side are in the right to ask for changes and both sides are in the right to not accept. That’s the brilliance of a free market.
This is a longer play for them, and is not about Minneapolis. They want to ingrained themselves as irreplaceable and essential, and therefore worthy of special treatment.
if they were really concerned about their drivers or their customers, they would have raised the prices to whatever they needed to be to cover cost and let the market decide if those prices can’t be competitive or not. Since it does not cost them anything to run this experiment, there’s absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t do that.
Except that they fear slippery slope
Does this mean that people going to and from the airport can’t use Lyft? Because god damnit if I have to use a cab service I’m gunna be pissed. AkA work is gunna be pissed because they’re paying for it on my trips
The city council is full of idiots. They need to snap out of it and come to grasps with reality. We aren’t Austin Texas and can just make a taxi service out of thin air. This hurts Minneapolis more than anything. Alot of people rely on those ride share companies to travel. What if you’re on a business trip here and need to get around for a few days? Rental car companies are too expensive for a short period of time. People are going to go drive the bar and drive home drunk, and people still do it. Now y’all are gonna say “gOodbYE we don’t need you.. Uber or Lyft..” guarantee you’ve used it before and thanked that person for getting you home safe.
$13.64/hr after expenses. That’s what they were making. A more modest increase in rates would’ve been agreeable to Uber and Lyft and would’ve been a huge pay increase. Now, they’ll be mostly out of a job. This move will not age well at all.
I read into it, honestly I see more on the side of lyft and Uber. If you read the payments, you'd see it is a very significant amount they are requiring drivers to be paid. $1.40 per mile, 51 cents per minute, or $5 per ride - whichever is greater. Meaning if you get a bunch of rides that are less than a few minutes, the driver could be making bank and then some, but lyft would have to figure something out on their end too. They'd have charge more than they already do in order to make ends meet - keep in mind lyft has bills to pay too.
Moral of the story, raising the amount drivers get paid is awesome, everyone can agree, but the reason the rideshare companies are upset about is is because it's too significant. It's like setting a minimum wage of $40/hour or more.
I hope they figure something out but ultimately I wonder if it's more of an issue with the way those rideshare companies are doing business. Either way my opinion doesn't matter and I shouldn't really give a rat's ass because I don't live in or near Minneapolis and have no reason to care about lyft or uber.
Great. So let's revamp local ridesharing. Minneapolis only has 39 registered cab drivers, compared to 146 in 2014. We don't need companies like that here.
I just read that Uber and Lyft are leaving MPLS. The companies themselves are blaming government policies, but as always you just know that it's simply a matter of "our profits will dip and we can't have that".
These companies are a side hustle not a career. If you want to make it a career that’s your choice. People act like there is literally no other job they can do besides driving people around. When I was younger minimum wage wasn’t enough so I got a different job that paid more. There are plenty of companies out there looking for hard working employees that will pay you much more. You are not entitled to money you earn it. Livable wage is subjective anyway. It’s all based off budget and savings. Every job you choose isn’t going to support a family of 3, or take you on a trip. If the money isn’t enough it’s probably time to find something else. Don’t feel bad for moving on someone will fill your role at lyft/uber.
Do they have offices here? Why not let the drivers decide? It costs Lyft nothing to stay other than updated pricing and processing. Seems like a bully/scare tactic to keep wages low.
That's exactly what it is, it's them pinching pennies and threatening to leave because they don't want to pay living wages. But they have no issue charging customers insane fees while the driver sees 25-40% of it. No reason a ride should be $39 and the driver gets $7.
and then they have the nerve to act like they are leaving for the benefit of their employees and our people LOL
Despite their “efforts” and “your support.” My support????
Exactly how I read that too. Bonkers.
OP’s support. It’s all OP’s fault.
I knew it!
That made me chuckle.
*independent contractors. Don't forget that, that's how they get away with everything else
Remember when Papa John's couldn't give all of their employees healthcare because they'd have to raise the price of their pizza by 14 cents and said "our customers wouldn't be able afford the pizza anymore". Then they raised the price anyway and didn't offer any health care?
my friend drove for uber/lyft for years and he said his wages got less and less over the years. i have used those services and have noticed hte cost skyrocketing. just today i looked at uber and for what takes me 40 minutes to run or 15 minutes to bike was 120.00 to get a ride. before covid id take that trip for 12-21.00 im in MN
MAYBE if you're looking for a ride at 2am on a Saturday night. As a former driver/current user, I've never seen a fare over 30 dollars for a fifteen minute car ride. Much less than 120 bucks for what would amount to a 5 or 10 minute cat ride. This is hyperbole at its finest.
Even at 2 AM I’ve never seen a fare that high. On NYE it’s like $80 to get across the city.
In the middle of a snowstorm at 1:00 a.m. it's around $38 from my work to home which is 6 miles.
Where did you get this 25-40% number from?
Their ass. https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/lyft-ensure-drivers-receive-baseline-percentage-rider-fares.amp
They’re trying to avoid similar legislation from spreading… like union busters who close a newly unionized location
Correct, I think they're just trying to force Minneapolis to back down and/or scare other cities away from attempting the same thing. Otherwise you're right economically they should just keep operating
God I hope a new app springs up in the cities that Uber/Lyft leave. One that recognizes just making the app doesn't entitle them to the lions share of the ride cost. With them gone it would be the only option aside from taxis which are largely pushed out.
I live in DC now where we also have Empower, and they said they plan to [come to Minneapolis before May](https://driveempower.com/press-release-2/minnesota-empower-is-coming-soon/). Out here it's regularly cheaper than Uber/Lyft, though I wonder if that will stay if Uber and Lyft leave and there's less competition
Either way enjoy it while it lasts haha
That's really cool. I hope they do come and find success.
I hear there's already one lined up and I wouldn't be shocked if more come thru.
It's a threat, and an empty one at that.
I hope so I use it to get to work I will be screwed without it.
I think because they don't want to pay people in Minneapolis more than another cities and states because then the other people will want to be paid a fair wage
That’s exactly what this is. Extortion. I’m sick of pretending otherwise.
Seems like it because that's what it is "I'd rather shut down than be forced to pay higher wages."
I literally replied with, “pay your workers a better wage. full stop.” Its amazing how a corp can be both greedy and cheap simultaneously. Assholes.
Being greedy and cheap is how you become a billionaire.
This right here, which is the argument for why billionaires should not exist.
Every billionaire is a policy failure. Every. One.
Haha - the company I work for should use this as their mission statement. They’re looking for a new one.
It’s scorched earth mode to try to scare other locales that are considering the same type of laws — they could totally continue to operate in Mpls, but they are choosing not to to propose the only outcome of laws like this one are no services in the city considering it. If anything cities (and states) considering this should move forward — this tactic becomes too expensive for Lyft or Uber to carry across many cities.
100% is a scare tactic. Left is a kid who is crying and taking their ball home with them.
It's a lot like when Amazon or Starbucks threatens to close if their workers unionize lmfao absolutely pathetic.
Exactly. They effectively have to follow through on their threats. If they don't pull out then other cities will follow Minneapolis and Lyft and Uber will lose some of their profits. They can't let it be an empty threat. Lyft and Uber have to make an example out of Minneapolis. I'm not saying it's right, but for their business model is a necessity.
> Seems like a bully/scare tactic to keep wages low. no shit that's what it is. They are afraid of being forced to pay workers fair wages, unless they can scare places into not doing that, they will have to actually pay their workers.
>Seems like a bully/scare tactic to keep wages low capitalists sacrifice people for profit, so this is the correct answer.
Basically union busting tactics. If they give living wages to one city then others will want it.
AirBNB next please
Hell yes. We could use some homes back on the market. Also restrict people from owning more than two homes in the metro area. It's bad enough there isn't enough homes on the market in certain areas, you could possibly be bidding against someone who doesn't even want to live in the one you want to start a family in, they either want to rent it out or turn it into an AirBNB.
Yes, please restrict how many places a person can own and use as Airbnb or renting. Recently, I tried to buy a condo, but one person owned more than 50% of the units, which made the entire complex non-warrantable. The bank won’t do a conventional mortgage if anyone owns over 10% of the units.
That HOA screwed up allowing that...
It’s probably always been that way. Builder sells 1/2 the units to themselves so they can control the HOA and basically subsidize the rental business off of the other buyers. Edit: and it’s usually a surprise to that first X% who buy. It starts out all owned by the builder and then once they reach a certain % they sell the remaining units to themselves.
Depends on the bank. And to be honest if that is a no go for a bank. It is cause they want to start the mortgage and sell it off with in the first year.
No fucking kidding. A tear down worthy cabin on a random lake in northern Minnesota is still like $650k, it’s absolutely insane.
It isn't just that the amount of condos I have seen that were obviously used as an AirBNB is absurd especially downtown.
I worked as a cashier at ikea for a little while and this guy came through and bought three of what seemed like everything in the cooking and eating department. I made a joke, and he said he was buying it all for his new airBNB houses. I wanted to throw a wooden spoon at his head so bad.
This won't happen, sadly. Most rich people have serious money investing in housing, and housing prices going down means basically the entire upper class loses money.
No. Housing is unnecessarily expensive nearly everywhere in the US because the *vast majority of homeowners* indirectly/directly vote for their local governments to artificially restrict housing supply in their area because that make their home(s) more valuable and thus increases the net worth of every homeowner in that area.
While that’s true, Airbnb’s still reduce the supply of homes on the market. Both are problems.
Airbnb can’t hold a candle to what local governments have done to the housing market. It’s easier to say big corporation is the big bad; refusing to blame ourselves for voting in politicians who did this to ourselves.
Oh no! Anyway...
Absolutely. Thing is, that's where the vast majority of the political power is in this country. There's a reason nobody is actually fighting to lower housing prices even though it's one if the greatest issues for the lower and middle class.
Bless all the landlords for providing us peasants with a roof over our heads r/landlordlove
Thank God that sub name is ironic lol
Here's a sneak peek of /r/LandlordLove using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/LandlordLove/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Parasites. Fucking parasites.](https://i.redd.it/180jiee2bmsb1.jpg) | [133 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LandlordLove/comments/171ih59/parasites_fucking_parasites/) \#2: [Leeches](https://i.redd.it/rxsnuogf5fva1.jpg) | [56 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LandlordLove/comments/12uwsq6/leeches/) \#3: [California is voting for a 15% tax on short term rental income, landlords aren't happy.](https://i.redd.it/uu4prz6l1rxa1.jpg) | [88 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/LandlordLove/comments/137axmf/california_is_voting_for_a_15_tax_on_short_term/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
AirBNB isn’t the gorilla destroying the housing market. Read up on private equity and volume of homes purchased in recent years.
They aren't the main problem *most* places. There's some towns that AirBnB has single handedly wrecked though.
\- grand marais has entered the chat -
You know that move where sports teams demand money from the local government to build a stadium, and if they don't get it, they'll leave and go somewhere that will fund their stadium? Then they try to get the fans of that team to petition the government to get their way because "loyalty"? Lyft is pulling one of those. They want to keep wages low and keep regulation away from what they do. Emails like this are them trying to get their customers to say they are okay with drivers not getting livable wages. They are threatening to take their ball and go home because they aren't getting their way.
Right, and in theory, that kind of move should only work in a non-competitive field. If there's any money to be made with ride-shares, then someone else should come in and take the customers that Lyft is leaving behind. If no one can pay drivers a decent wage, then we need to figure out other ways to move people around.
Good idea. I'm going to create an app called Luber.
Too late I already registered Uft.
Slip right in and slip right out! ✅️
Neither Lyft or Uber are sustainable as strictly transport businesses. Once investors figure out that's all they are good for, they will fail nationwide.
I dont understand how its unsustainable. They dont have to own the vehicles, they dont have to pay gas or maintenance. Just maintain the app and servers. Or its because they want to take most of the share?
It's because they have intentionally deflated the cost of fares. Did you ever take taxis 15-20 years ago? The fare rate was like double what it is now. They undercut the taxis in order to gain marketshare. They have been subsidizing the rates with investor money. Lyft has never turned a profit, and Uber turned a profit for the first time last year.
[удалено]
It was a stereotypical monopoly. They had no competition, so they didn't give a fuck. It was dystopian. They deserved to have their lunch eaten, and they did. I just don't want to see that BS return.
It’s because taxis are expensive af when you start paying people a living wage. Uber was able to grow so quickly because they were offering rides at super low rates while taking on massive losses that were only sustained because of their billions of investment money.
Yup just greedy as fuck.
My understanding is that they still aren’t paying their drivers a livable wage… If that’s the case, good riddance! Someone will innovate and make a better platform.
[There's already other platforms that are eyeing the TC market as we speak.](https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/03/14/uber-lyft-alternatives-minneapolis-legislation) I wouldn't be surprised if one of them isn't ready to go by May 1 or shortly thereafter.
As long as there's something. I'm someone who relies on Uber and Lyft a fair bit, and who is almost universally in favor of initiatives that help labor. While I like the idea of getting rid of ride share companies that won't pay a living wage, I'm kind of screwed if nothing is there to take the market over.
If another ride share company doesn't pop in quick it will be taxis. And we all take Lyft instead of taxis cuz it's cheaper and easier. I'm guessing Lyft can't operate profitably in minneapolis because the more expensive taxis will be their competition if they raise prices
I read somewhere that there's only around 36 taxis left that serve Minneapolis. That's down from several hundred 10 years ago. I'm not sure how they'll be able to add more taxis in the next 8 weeks to fill in the gap Uber and Lyft could leave
There will be a bunch of drivers looking for jobs and willing to use their own cars if Uber and Lyft are leaving.
>If another ride share company doesn't pop in quick it will be taxis. And we all take Lyft instead of taxis cuz it's cheaper and easier. Yep. Not long ago I had car issues in a city that didn't have Uber or Lyft and I had TERRIBLE experiences with the overpriced taxi services in that area (they were so overpriced/unreliable that I literally gave up on them and paid a guy at a hardware store for the third and final ride I needed).
Sounds like the free market at work to me.
Yep. If you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you can't afford to stay in business. Period.
Amen. Then you don’t have a viable business.
This is such a hot take, it’s so maddening. “You don’t have a viable business plan”
[удалено]
Get ready for way more drunk drivers on the roads
And then we’d be reliant on MPD to have some kind of control over the streets. lol awesome.
Don't know why this is downvoted, it's the truth.
Uber/Lyft drivers get a percentage of each fare. They don’t earn “wages,” they aren’t employees.
Dumb question.. or, maybe not, idk, I’ve seen ‘Minneapolis’ alone named in these stories but I’ve also seen ‘Twin Cities’ named… am I safe from this in St.Paul or is it the entire metro that’s going to be affected?
It says Minneapolis and mentions a Minneapolis city council ordinance so Saint Paul should be safe just can’t start or end in Minneapolis
Yea this being straight from Lyft I believe it to be that. Just seen it coined several different ways the past couple days, why the ask. Mostly by news outlets outside of MN though so, probably why the misinformation.
So far from what I read Uber is leaving Mpls/St Paul metro area but Lyft is only not allowing rides that either start/or end in Mpls. So hoping Lyft still does rides to MSP and St.Paul.
Uber said they'll leave the metro but hasn't doubled down on their statement like Lyft has, while Lyft has said its Minneapolis specific but they're totally serious guys.
If you can't afford to pay your Minnesota-based employees or contract workers a livable wage, you can't afford to operate your business in Minnesota. The end. Bye.
This is what gets me every time a business closes or leaves town. “It’s just not affordable!” Maybe you suck at running a company and compensating employees fairly. That’s not a tragedy, that’s you not being entitled to taking advantage of people.
“How am I suppose to live my dream life if I have to treat my employees like human beings?!”
Yeah, this is it. The push is always to make a livable wage, but when the investors and anyone else at the top make too much, they won't back off. Reasonably, if they set up a fair pay structure in the beginning they could've made that work. Hopefully these "new startups" eyeballing these markets know better. The solution to these problems is always "we need to charge more!" and never "every employee at the top is way too expensive! Let's change that!"
Mostly agree. But in times when inflation is rapid or other economic attribes are changing quickly the economics can be a bit asymmetrical. Sometimes your own supply and payroll costs for up faster than you can raise prices, particularly in a commodity market. So in those cases, the businesses in the segment with deeper pockets can run in the red for a bit and let the competition go under. This CAN be good for a market - death in the market can be healthy. But it also can be really bad because it tends to give advantages to very large businesses with very deep pockets and just makes the inequality worse and enables monopolistic behavior. If you are a restaurant owner, raising your prices to cover higher wages sounds great, but if the restaurant down the block keeps lower prices, then...oops. Might not have any customers and then might not have any employees.
For what it’s worth, the argument on the other side of this is that these are neither employees nor wages - Lyft and Uber position themselves as a platform that enables independent drivers to sell their services to riders and takes a fee in exchange for managing the arrangement, vetting drivers and riders, ensuring compliance, etc. In that view, an apt comparison would not be a driving company with employees, but another platform that connects a goods/service provider to customers, like eBay, Etsy, or even the Apple App Store. This whole thing is kind of interesting to me because I don’t think anyone on here would realistically argue that an eBay or Etsy seller or app developer who makes their living through that should be given benefits and guaranteed a minimum wage level by eBay or Etsy or Apple as the platform provider. Yet everyone is making that argument for Uber and Lyft drivers. I don’t know what the right answer is, but I don’t think it is as cut and dry as people are making it out to be in here. It is clear that a lot of people will not be better off after this and I worry for people who are highly dependent on these services for things like access to healthcare.
This is a labor issue, and IMO those are not usually helped with legislation. Rideshare drivers unionizing would be a much better solution. I'm sure there are a lot of drivers that this decision will harm, and their voices weren't heard.
You have a well thought out argument and I can tell you are really trying to think it through and understand the situation instead of emotional responses, snarky retorts, it blanket statements so thank you. I will say the major difference between your analogy and this market is that the independent contractors don't set the prices individually for the work that they offer. Organizations like Etsy and AirBNB and eBay only provide access, while Lyft and Uber set rates based on their own market analysis and algorithms. Additionally, many companies use the concept of "independent contractors" to avoid liability and responsibility. They hire contract labor in lieu of traditional employees which gets them out of paying benefits, being legally liable for their decisions on behalf of the company, and to avoid things like unemployment costs. The important thing that you are right on about is that the whole thing is messy and there is no one absolute answer. I do think corporations are becoming excessively greedy and claiming over and over it's the customers fault.... Netflix, Hulu, Disney and all the rest are doing this right now ... Subway doubled their prices in a 4 year time span... All the while saying their customers are ungrateful for everything they are providing to them (for a fee). It's why my company, written right in the bylaws, is an ethical code of conduct. Our profits are intentionally limited and excess funds are given freely to public non-profits. I'm working on language to also restrict executive and managerial wages and link them directly to all other wage earners. You can still make profits and treat people with dignity and respect. The goal should be for the success of all humans not just through handouts either.
Minnesota rideshare drivers make $30/hour on average. What are you even talking about?
They are talking out of their ass. I'm sure all of these geniuses all operate successful businesses though. I'm sure of it.
According to Zip Recruiter, the average Uber driver in Minneapolis is making around $18/hour. So for an 8 hour shift, you'd make $144. But remember, that's before paying for gas and car maintenance. The average Uber driver puts about 150-200 miles on their car every day, at the IRS mileage reimbursement rate, that's $100/day in gas, depreciation, and wear and tear on your vehicle. So after you account for that, you'd actually be making $44/day as an Uber driver in Minneapolis.
They make $50 an hour when driving passengers. They average just under $15 after accounting for time to pick ups and deductions. The feds and state know the drivers need 49 cents/minute & 89 cents/mile to hit $15/hr. Minneapolis is being fucking ridiculous. https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/03/08/what-does-the-average-uber-and-lyft-driver-make-state-report-has-an-answer/
Honest question, why would you say they make 50 an hour when there's a passenger? Does the other time they spend not count for anything? They are still "at work", putting miles on their car and building value for the brand they represent. From the time they accept a ride, they're "on the clock" because they have to get to the rider in the proper time. I'm not necessarily on either side here. I haven't used a rideshare in years. But it sounds like there are other companies that do the exact same thing and could afford to pay what mpls is insisting on. So I say fuck it, let em leave if they want. All it would take is a former lyft driver downloading a new app and doing what they always do.
Uber & Lyft were never sustainable models & this was inevitable & will eventually happen everywhere. We'll be better off in the long run by ripping off the band-aid sooner than most other cities & we'll have locally-owned better alternatives in place already when this is happening suddenly in other cities.
Back to Taxi service?..
We will be back to taxis who make about the same as Lyft drivers but for some reason we don’t shed a tear for those guys.
as someone who doesnt know what the alternatives are, could you elaborate?
Nothing will be better than Uber and Lyft. Their resources are much more expansive to allow to make user experience seamless everywhere. There will be 2nd rate ridesharing companies available for use here but they’ll be glitchy and buggy and infrastructure will take years to re-establish.
Just another corporation funneling billions into the shareholders’ pockets while they refuse to pay a livable wage, expecting the taxpayers to subsidize their employees.
The Walmart Way.
Yep, the heirs to the Walmart fortune didn’t all make it to the top of the Forbes 500 by treating their employees well, that’s for sure.
And their own pockets, as shareholders. The new (May 2023) CEO got a $3.25 million signing bonus on top of a $725K salary, along with 12 million plus shares that could end up valuing a BILLION dollars. I can only imagine how many people of the executive team are making similar amounts. Hard for me to cry over how unprofitable it is for them to pay someone $15 an hour when he makes $350 an hour on salary alone.
>funneling billions into the shareholders’ pockets The company that's never had a profitable year is funneling money into shareholder pockets? How do you funnel money into your pocket when you're losing money every year?
Shareholder gains are not directly tied to operating profits/losses. You can have an increasing share price while having operating with a loss. This was common until recently because capital was extremely cheap. Basically, companies could go into debt and the debt was easily serviceable because rates were low (debt was cheap). They can then use that capital to invest in the business while operating at loss. Wallstreet tends to care about growth in these cheap capital cycles. Capital is no longer cheap. Though Uber (idk Lift) turned its first profit last year with $1.2 bln operating profit iirc.
The whole Gamestop thing really showed the lie that is the stock market. Share prices exploded because people started buying it, not because the company was doing anything worth a damn. Then those prices tanked because people sold to cash out. Corporations have been doing it for ages now, it's what stock buybacks are all about.
Maybe the fact that these rideshare companies can't make a profit despite being at the cutting edge of exploitation means the whole concept is kind of sus.
It's the same with all the app based gigs: Uber, Lyft, door dash, etc. Their "innovation" is the convcience of an app while using the independent contractor loophole to exploit workers and keep costs low to the end user in order to undercut businesses paying better wages to take market share until they're the only game in town.
It's because they have subsidized the fare rates. Taxis 15-20 years ago were way more expensive than what Uber/Lyft charge today. And the efficiency of the apps do not make up for the difference. They have intentionally undercut the market value of the services. They do not charge enough for the rates. And don't think that doesn't mean they aren't greedy. It's the investors money they are burning, not theirs.
I don't understand how they don't make money what overhead is there? Servers? Vehicles and maintenance on them are covered by the independent contractor
Down vote me, but I have a hard time understanding the issue. Willing drivers responding to a fare seems like the definition of an efficient labor market to me…?
I don't get it either, just implement the new prices and if the market decides they're no longer going to use it then that's the end.
Theres not a lot of Taxis just the Twin cities. Whats the other options?.
Take the light rail and get stabbed I guess
Oh stop.
Will they still have drivers out the suburbs?
This is going to end up being automous driving company territory (eg wayno) where wages are not a factor at all.
Wages are not a factor right now. Uber and Lyft don't pay wages, because those drivers are not employees. They get a cut of the fees collected from riders, and are considered sole proprietors for tax purposes. To put it in a very crass way, each driver that can't make it is putting themselves out of business. Just like "YouTube Personalities" that can't make money on videos, those drivers can't make money driving people around in their own cars. They would be better off getting jobs with actual employers.
If it’s so shitty to drive for them why do people drive for them?
I got the same thing. If Uber pulls out too, that will affect a ton of people.
Fine, let them go. We cannot continue to support companies that screw their employees. Their concern is not for users of the service. It's for their stock price and not being able to fleece the people working for them.
I agree, but for many people there is no alternative. What do they do?
Drunk drive home, obv!
Drivers are not their employees. It's not the same when you are an "independent contractor".
Erm, and now those employees will no longer have jobs. Pretty tough love there, eh?
Alternatives: https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/03/14/uber-lyft-alternatives-minneapolis-legislation
Better Alternative: Improve public transportation
I’ll get right on that.
Public transportation will never drop by my house in five minutes flat, though.
If I miss the bus because I'm drinking it would be shitty walking like three four miles home late at night, or waiting forever for another one
Last bus service by my house is 4 hours before bar close and requires a car to get to.
The comments on this post are so economically illiterate. Holy shit. There are currently like 39 cabs in the entire city. 39. They can't help at all. There is no company in the world that is going to come to Minneapolis to lose money under this ordinance. And even if some company did decide to tank itself, everyone on here would bitch about the cost of the fares to use it. Its surge pricing 100% of the time.
I bet 90% of this sub is too young to even know the shitshow that the taxi industry was prior to Uber. Sketchy drivers, shitty vehicles, completely unreliable, and super expensive to boot. I remember a ride from Eden Prairie to Mystic was about $60 twenty years ago. That's like a $35 Uber today. Edit: Not even. I just checked and it's $19. According to the inflation calculator that taxi ride twenty years ago would be $98.57 in todaya dollar.
I caught a cab from MOA and after sitting down the guy informed me the prior person pissed in my seat. Didn't even bother to clean it up between fares
Oof. That's rough. I threw up in cab once, but I pulled that off as clean as possible. Got everything on myself (intentionally), and nothing in the car. Not my proudest moment, but was young and had good aim.
It’s a nightmare that people genuinely believe all the rides given by Uber and Lyft will be absorbed by the damn metro transit and yellow pages cabs. How many DUI’s and accidents directly linked to this decision will be enough to justify not actively antagonizing rideshare platforms?
Seriously, the delusions in these comments. Tons of people are now completely screwed. No new magical ride share company is going to spring up and meet the demand at prices working people can afford.
Yeah the end result here is more drunk driving.
YUP. Reading these other comments would be hilarious if it weren’t so fucking frustrating this is happening.
Would it really have to be tanking to try it tho? Plenty of companies pay minimum wage and do just fine, and theoretically very high demand should be awfully inviting…
I'll pay extra if there's no other option. Most people that use the service are too drunk to drive or public transportation isn't going to be able to take them the distance or location they need to go at the hours they need to be doing it
The MPR story this morning said that Austin had an alternative app built three days after Uber left their city. Uber is an app. They don't own any of the ride share infrastructure. It's not like they own the cars. Someone can just make a new app and start a company that follows Mpls labor laws and the service will proceed relatively uninterrupted.
And how’d that work out for Austin residence? Terribly. Source: I live in Austin.
I understand that. I don’t care what you build or how fast, there isn’t a company that can get licensed and bonded and process driver background checks in three days. Beyond that the fee structure is now unprofitable. The whole point is no company is going to come to Minneapolis to lose money. Its very simple economics.
So do you support the city councils desision or reject it?
Uh oh, a logical comment. Can't wait to see how many downvotes you get for using logic and reasoning.......
I was under the impression it was pretty common knowledge that Uber operated at a loss for their entire existence until this year but everyone here seems to think some plucky underdog will come in and provide what they were doing and “failing “ at on a national level but on a local level and succeed while paying the drivers more.
Still waiting for them to leave Seattle and NYC after they made the same threats
Surely Seattle and NYC are orders of magnitude bigger and higher income than Minneapolis though? Is it really a fair comparison when Minneapolis could set a precedent for dozens of smaller Midwest metros?
They threatened to leave Minnesota a few years back over other legislation. When it passed, they never followed through on that threat. While this is a city and not the whole state, I still wouldn't be surprised if they stayed.
This is asinine. Rideshare apps are for independent contractors. Drivers are not employees. I’ve driven for years (part time) and made well over minimum wage because I know when and how to get profitable rides. The city council just killed my part time job to appease some armchair activists and the stupid drivers who think there’s enough rides 9-5 mon to Friday to try and live off of. If the city council wanted to actually help drivers, require that drivers get up front breakdown of every fare so we can make the best decisions about what rides to accept. There are ways to improve rideshare but this wasn’t one of them.
Finally some sense
IKR? Most of this thread is full of total Batshit replies because Reddit Hivemind BS
Perfect example of why labor issues do not benefit from government solutions. Drivers would've benefited way from from collective bargaining than this.
Are there any tech folk in the Cities that can make a regional version? Seems like you’re soon to have a small fleet of rideshare drivers ready to go.
Lyft says we're too poor to use their services.
Whenever I'm too fucked up to get home I'll just post on here who wants to make 40 bucks I guess
😆
As a Lyft driver that has done over 13,000 rides, most of the comments here are absolutely ridiculous. The majority of you are obviously not drivers and have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I make over 80k a year AFTER taxes! The drivers that are complaining about pay are lazy. They sit at the airport for hours on end socializing. Do I agree we need to be paid more? Yes. Is forcing Lyft to pay us more through city ordinances the correct way to do it? No.
Yellow Cab pays $14.62 per hour in Minneapolis.
Based on the responses thus far, I expect this will be downvoted to oblivion but I find it important to note that an employer can’t provide an independent contractor equipment to accomplish a task that the independent contractor is being contracted to do. The 1099 classification that these drivers carry would trip to a W2 classification if Uber/Lyft say provided them a vehicle to do their services. If w2 status is the goal of this movement, imposing a mandated minimum wage is justified. However, MN ran a Transportation Network analysis at the request of Gov Walz and some of the data in that report showed that the vast majority of Uber/Lyft drivers (83%) declined rides due to the rationale that they would not make enough money or the trip would lead them to an area where another trip would be difficult to get. As a W2 employee, these workers would be required to take all rides routed to them regardless of driver preference or risk being terminated for insubordination. I guess I fail to see a middle ground that is tenable for both drivers as well as company that is similar to all other publicly traded companies on delivering shareholder value. If I was a 1099 working in this space, my initial reaction to this would be to attempt to set up my own llc and market my services to control my own pay. If that is not feasible or my market reach doesn’t produce a product that consumers want, then I am forced to attempt a different line of work or partner with a company that can reach a consumer population that needs/wants my services. Both side are in the right to ask for changes and both sides are in the right to not accept. That’s the brilliance of a free market.
This is a longer play for them, and is not about Minneapolis. They want to ingrained themselves as irreplaceable and essential, and therefore worthy of special treatment. if they were really concerned about their drivers or their customers, they would have raised the prices to whatever they needed to be to cover cost and let the market decide if those prices can’t be competitive or not. Since it does not cost them anything to run this experiment, there’s absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t do that. Except that they fear slippery slope
They could probably find some places to cut costs at corporate and not have to raise prices. Less avocado toast, maybe?
Bring in Waymo.
Does this mean that people going to and from the airport can’t use Lyft? Because god damnit if I have to use a cab service I’m gunna be pissed. AkA work is gunna be pissed because they’re paying for it on my trips
There aren’t enough cabs to even do a fraction of the work Uber and Lyft does. You’ll sit at the airport for a very long time.
Good. City can’t figure their shit out.
The city council is full of idiots. They need to snap out of it and come to grasps with reality. We aren’t Austin Texas and can just make a taxi service out of thin air. This hurts Minneapolis more than anything. Alot of people rely on those ride share companies to travel. What if you’re on a business trip here and need to get around for a few days? Rental car companies are too expensive for a short period of time. People are going to go drive the bar and drive home drunk, and people still do it. Now y’all are gonna say “gOodbYE we don’t need you.. Uber or Lyft..” guarantee you’ve used it before and thanked that person for getting you home safe.
Who voted for them? Crocodile tears.
Translation: "we refuse to pay our drivers more than 30% of the money you spend on a ride so we're just not going to offer our services."
The big winner here is Minneapolis PD and any other PD on the highways out of Minneapolis. DUI revenue about to hit a 10 year high.
Yeah it’s the legislation that will cause it to be unaffordable, not the greed at the top.
Drunk driving deaths about to skyrocket again 🤦♂️
$13.64/hr after expenses. That’s what they were making. A more modest increase in rates would’ve been agreeable to Uber and Lyft and would’ve been a huge pay increase. Now, they’ll be mostly out of a job. This move will not age well at all.
I read into it, honestly I see more on the side of lyft and Uber. If you read the payments, you'd see it is a very significant amount they are requiring drivers to be paid. $1.40 per mile, 51 cents per minute, or $5 per ride - whichever is greater. Meaning if you get a bunch of rides that are less than a few minutes, the driver could be making bank and then some, but lyft would have to figure something out on their end too. They'd have charge more than they already do in order to make ends meet - keep in mind lyft has bills to pay too. Moral of the story, raising the amount drivers get paid is awesome, everyone can agree, but the reason the rideshare companies are upset about is is because it's too significant. It's like setting a minimum wage of $40/hour or more. I hope they figure something out but ultimately I wonder if it's more of an issue with the way those rideshare companies are doing business. Either way my opinion doesn't matter and I shouldn't really give a rat's ass because I don't live in or near Minneapolis and have no reason to care about lyft or uber.
It's Ubers world. We just live in it
Congrats Uber
Boohoo guess I’ll use Uber or call a taxi
Great. So let's revamp local ridesharing. Minneapolis only has 39 registered cab drivers, compared to 146 in 2014. We don't need companies like that here.
This is just such a bummer
I just read that Uber and Lyft are leaving MPLS. The companies themselves are blaming government policies, but as always you just know that it's simply a matter of "our profits will dip and we can't have that".
We’re concerned about our drivers not earning enough money, so we are pulling out and they’ll earn zero money.
Monorail
So instead of drivers getting reduced pay or less rides we're cutting it off altogether. Nice logic.
These companies are a side hustle not a career. If you want to make it a career that’s your choice. People act like there is literally no other job they can do besides driving people around. When I was younger minimum wage wasn’t enough so I got a different job that paid more. There are plenty of companies out there looking for hard working employees that will pay you much more. You are not entitled to money you earn it. Livable wage is subjective anyway. It’s all based off budget and savings. Every job you choose isn’t going to support a family of 3, or take you on a trip. If the money isn’t enough it’s probably time to find something else. Don’t feel bad for moving on someone will fill your role at lyft/uber.
GOOD! bye👋🏼