Comments

1. ‘How many times old man…’ (Spongebob meme, @L737?)

   I just want workers (drivers, here) and consumers (passengers, here) to be treated better, so, yes, pay drivers more (they’re the ones taking all the risk, doing the work) and don’t harm consumers either (don’t charge us more than necessary, don’t pay games with prices to an excessive level).

   As usual, it’s corporate greed (ride-share companies, like Uber, Lyft, etc., those behind the apps) that are taking more than their fair share here (and not providing much to the actual drivers). Enough with this exploitation.

2. And for those in NYC, if it weren’t for the $10, $15, etc., per month in ‘Uber Cash’ from the Gold/Platinum Amex, and the $10 ride-share credit via Delta Reserve Amex, I’d probably never use Uber. They price-gauge. JFK-Manhattan should be a flat $75-85, like the Yellow cab, depending on time of day, peak, etc. Uber will be $150-250… for a Camry. Absurd. Lyft still somewhat has more reasonable prices, but they’ll be like $100-125 at a similar time. At those rates, I’m taking the Yellow cab, or the A train. Same for LGA, E train to the bus; EWR, PATH to Newark, then bus or ride-share ($15-25). Otherwise, it’s getting nuts out there. And at $250, might as well take the helicopter (didn’t @Gary Leff do Blade recently?)

3. @1990 — that’s a throwback! SpongeBob memes are a whole new world as an adult. And yes. Agreed on Uber, seems like it’s getting out of control

   The big decoration! I approve. Surprised Shaq doesn’t have a hotel sponsorship yet.

4. ” has been in a downward spiral ”

   Seems like they are in an upward spiral. You’d rather they go back to unprofitability? If drivers don’t like it they are welcome to start their own ridesharing platform.

   BTW, those are artillery shells, not RPGs.

5. @L737 — ‘I’m ready…’ for workers and consumers to not get screwed by big companies… also, ‘is mayonnaise an instrument’?

   @Mantis — So, are you admitting that there are anti-competitive practices and realities in this space, or… merely disparaging the workers, yet again, like you usually do… hmm… I wonder…

   @L737 — Hi again, which reminds me: “I’ll start my own (ride share app)… with blackjack and hookers! …you know, forget the (ride share app)!”

6. We have HUM as a rideshare alternative here (not sure where they operate) – flat subscription fee for the driver and he keeps the rest.
   Unfortunately, they always charge more than Uber/Lyft. Good that the driver keeps a higher % so every ride creates more $ in her/his pocket. But charging more is just greedy.

7. @1990 — Horseradish is not an instrument either….

   @1990 — How deliciously absurd!

   Also I think I’ve mentioned this before, but now IAD also has a Ben’s Chili so you can get your fix wherever you fly from in DC!

8. Uber has gotten so bad that I prefer to take a taxi. I don’t begrudge the company wanting to earn a profit but treating both drivers and riders horribly has made me avoid Uber where possible.

9. @1990 – Nice Futurama quote. Bender Rodriguez for president.

10. It isn’t any surprise. Uber is a technology (shareholder) corporation. The only way to deliver more to their shareholders is to raise prices and/or squeeze drivers.

11. Gary – have you looked at Wridz? They are in some cities and expanding – very clear and transparent model.

    Riders pay less and drivers keep more – in fact when showing you the ride cost – it also shows you what the driver will receive!

    And no surge pricing.

    Hope it expands and lasts

12. I take Uber when it fits my plans. In the last several years the drivers have reported that Uber takes half of the fare. So that my tip stays completely with the driver, I tip in cash. The tip is a private transaction and a small gift.

13. Uber doesn’t take any money from drivers. Drivers pay a percentage to Uber for the platform that finds them customers. The passenger is the driver’s customer and Uber is the driver’s customer. Uber works for drivers, not the other way around.

14. Let’s just say it like it is. UBER doesn’t give a rats ass about the drivers. Although some drive for UBER because it works into their schedule or its a second job to fill in the pay gaps, many have no other choice. As soon as driver less technology improves UBER eill drop all drivers as quick as the can email the pinkslips.

15. Evan gets it!

16. @Evan – That’s sophistry. Nice try though.

17. 1990 says “enough with this exploitation.” It seems Americans love to be exploited.
    What you’re describing is the state of bad capitalism that decades of “death by a 1000 cuts” has brought us to.
    Not using the services at all might be a good form of protest. But people can’t be bothered. “I’ll still fly but grumble grumble” “I’ll still use uber but grumble grumble”
    Nothing will change unless enough consumers stop using exploitative services. There’s no such thing as “a corporation’s good will.”

18. @WearyWatchdog — You’re 100% correct. It’s sad to watch and live through. Even a global pandemic didn’t ‘correct’ anything; so much for ‘essential workers.’ If anything, corporate greed has proliferated to all aspects of society. It certainly depends on exactly where you are, because certain states and cities (in the USA) are better about this than others, but they all have a long way to go. There really should be a +$30/hour minimum wage as a baseline simple policy fix for much of this. Yeah, that’d be considered ’communism’ to some folks. Psh. They’re not arguing in good faith anyway. Clearly, folks like @Evan and @Mike P either love to exploit or be exploited. As I’ve said before, we don’t ‘kink shame’ on here… but man, their ‘kink’ is kinda hurting the test of us…

19. “There really should be a +$30/hour minimum wage as a baseline simple policy fix for much of this.”

    Why not $100? I mean, shouldn’t everyone have a right to a Mercedes, a second home and vacations on the Riviera?

20. @Mike P — I’m surprised you didn’t just repeat ‘yOu DiDn’T aNsWeR tHe QuEsTiOn…’ So, you mock a living wage in today’s economy, but if your guy’s illogical tariffs cause inflation to that degree (where $100/hour becomes necessary), we’re all in a lot of trouble. Also, you’re doing yet another logical fallacy of the n-th degree extreme position (no ‘right’ to a specific car, that’s silly). So, here’s our resident anarcho-libertarian, about to tell us again how ‘taxation is theft’… or were you one of those ‘sovereign citizen’ types? Either way, you’re not a serious person. And, beware of those audits (for not paying your taxes). *look over here* ‘red herring!’

21. Also, best we can do is a 2000s era Passat… sorry, no Mercedes. Someday though… fully-automated luxury communism… just for you!

22. Calling Uber “exploitation” is laughable. Exploitation is when you’re trapped with no way out. Driving for Uber is the exact opposite. It’s optional, instant, and stop-anytime-you-want work. If you don’t like the rate, decline the trip or log off. This isn’t a sweatshop, it’s an app on your phone. The only people screaming “exploitation” are the ones who think adults are helpless children who need government babysitters. The truth is, most drivers know exactly what they signed up for and are smart enough to leave if it’s not worth it.

23. I no longer take an Lyft/Uber from my airport. Taxis are right at the exit.
    No more dragging my suitcase all the way to some parking lot. Not to mention being cancelled several times by a Lyft/Uber driver for no apparent reason.

24. The technical term for what I did is “Reductio ad absurdum”. It’s used to refute an argument by demonstrating that when reduced to its logical conclusion, the consequences are absurd. It’s a valid technique used in debates. Also, it serves to point out, again, your economic ignorance.

25. @Mike P — No, it’s not valid; like most of your stuff, it was just a distraction.

    I’ve rarely if ever seen you share anything of value on here; like hardly anything about travel, credit cards, points, hotels, airlines, etc. You just call people ‘stupid,’ and promote libertarian nonsense.

    Occasionally, you quote something, like Twain, or *holds back vomit* Sowell. Speaking of, got any good quotes for us today? Maybe Thoreau? You seem like like the ideals of ‘self-reliance…’

26. “I’ve rarely if ever seen you share anything of value on here;…”

    Oh, isn’t that rich? As usual, you follow the same script. You offer nothing more than empty statements, devoid of logic or facts, and resort to character assassinations and ad hominem attacks—the product of a weak mind.

27. @1990 – You seem to have a visceral dislike for Thomas Sowell, yet I have never seen you offer a single substantive refutation of anything he has actually said or written. The best you seem able to muster is blind vitriol, such as the tired “Uncle Thomas Sowell” slur, which is neither argument nor evidence. If you have not noticed, the Hoover Institution does not make a habit of hiring intellectual lightweights. Sowell has authored more than forty books on economics, history, race, culture, and political philosophy, and has been recognized with honors such as the National Humanities Medal for his contributions to public understanding. If your criticism has any foundation beyond personal animus, then cite specific statements of his and show precisely where they are wrong. Otherwise, it is hard to take your outrage seriously.

28. @Mike Hunt — In my ‘discourse’ with @Mike P, in the past, yes I have expressed disappointment with Thomas Sowell, as he is often the ‘token black economist’ for libertarians and conservatives, who often push for policies that for all intents and purposes practically equates to ‘austerity,’ which will harm many members of that and other communities (ending government programs, etc.) I’d put him up there with his friend, Justice Thomas, who fills a similar roll for jurists. (I recall your legal background as well.)

    Also, more broadly, less Sowell, more to counter Mike’s thoughts on economics, I’ve shared my skepticism of the Austrian school’s economic theories for their lack of empiricism. Let me put it this way, I’m not sure current iteration of this, like Milei’s ‘chainsaw’ method, is going to do more than harm the poor and enrich the already wealthy and well-connected, as ‘austerity’ often does.

    As to Argentina, which you didn’t ask specifically about, but it’s a good example for discussion, as their economics are whacky, and I happen to have been to the country and appreciate the nuance of their back-and-forth from nationalism to globalism over the decades: Yes, the Argentinians could try this (as Milei is doing already), and may emerge like Greece after a lost decade, but that ‘process’ has scarred a generation of unemployed, mostly younger Greeks, many of whom fled elsewhere for work, lest they throw away their degrees, merely operate tours for tourists, make olive oil, or harvest marble (half-joking).

    Happy to discuss further. Anytime. Still having fun here, fellas. Hope you are too.

29. @1990 – So your big “critique” of Thomas Sowell amounts to calling him a “token black economist” and then hoping nobody notices you never addressed a single thing he has actually written. That is not an argument. That is just intellectual laziness wrapped in a racial insult. You might think you are making a clever point, but what you are really saying is that black thinkers are only legitimate if they parrot your political views. That is not just shallow, it is ugly.

    Dragging Clarence Thomas into this without any substantive link to the discussion is just more of the same. You clearly cannot stand the idea that intelligent, successful black Americans might have the audacity to think independently. Instead of dismantling their positions with evidence, you just wave them off as “tokens” and congratulate yourself for your insight.

    Your sudden pivot into Austrian economics is even more embarrassing. Sowell is not an Austrian school economist. Pretending you have refuted him by criticizing an entirely different school of thought is like saying you disproved Einstein by pointing out flaws in palm reading. It is irrelevant and it exposes that you do not actually know what Sowell’s intellectual framework even is.

    By the time you wander into Argentina, Greece, and your personal vacation anecdotes, it is clear you are just stringing together words in hopes that nobody notices you still have not made a single point about Sowell’s actual work. You offer no data, no policy breakdown, no counterexamples, and no engagement with his decades of economic analysis. Just buzzwords about “austerity” and some travel brochure filler.

    If you want to play in the grown-up league of political and economic debate, bring receipts. Cite Sowell’s arguments, show where his reasoning fails, and back it up with evidence. Until then, you are just throwing paint at the wall and hoping it looks like a masterpiece. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t.

30. @Mike Hunt — Bah! In a convo about both Thomas’s, you dare to call me ‘lazy,’ oof, how rich. Your response felt a bit ‘clean’… did AI help? If so, that’s fine, I guess. I’ll stick to my pithy shorthand.

    Speaking of things they published, see: ‘Meet My Friend Clarence’ published 2007 by Sowell; seems like they get along just fine (‘his sense of humor is terrific…’ pretty sure Anita Hill and likely others would disagree.)

    As for ‘substance,’ we can ignore the Austrian school, as that was more a @Mike P-thing. If you don’t care for Argentina or Greece, that’s fine, too. I’ll spare you my thoughts on Varoufakis… so dapper!

    So, what particular topic would you like to debate (re: Sowell)? It’s laughable you’d bring him up and suggest ‘race’ isn’t a topic worth covering. Much of his economic theories are an intersection of race, culture, and those theories.

    For instance, I ‘get’ the whole ‘personal responsibility’ and ‘free markets’ concepts, generally (because I live it, every freaking day in ‘2025 America’). Yet, the irony is that most of those Hoover Institute ‘thinkers’ are simply biased in-favor of corporate power, special interests, etc. They give up their ‘principles’ as soon as they obtain power (reward the in groups, harm the out groups, etc.)

    So, as I’ve said to @Mike P before, I’m not a ‘burn it all down,’ ‘taxation is theft,’ ‘sovereign citizen,’ anarcho-libertarian, and I don’t think you are either. I don’t think we’re in favor of fascism or communist dictatorships either. Where do we go from here?

31. And speaking of Hoover-era mistakes… tariffs.

    So, I’m happy to debate the merits of trickle-down, supply-side vs. bottom-up, demand-side economics with you, but, uh, I think we’re stuck here fighting the last war, when the new one is all about ‘tariffs’ (you know, import taxes that we all are gonna be paying, lest the companies foot the bill, which they never do, just pass it onto us the consumers).

    You don’t need to be an economist or a legal school to see that Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, empowers *Congress* (not the President) to lay and collect “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” Congress can delegate some authority, but it was never intended to be wielded in this way.

    Thanks to the Mr. Yoo and the ‘bootlickers’ at the Heritage Foundation, our ‘unitary executive,’ I mean, our ‘king,’ gets to decide these on a whim, because… ’emergencies.’ Oh my, if Democrat did this… y’all would have already coup’d them.

32. *I meant ‘scholar’ (not ‘school,’ above), but I think either works, honestly. *sigh*

33. @1990 – Ah, so now we have officially reached the “pretend I was joking” and “lol you used AI” stage of the debate. That is usually the moment when someone realizes they cannot actually defend their claims and starts looking for an escape hatch. The fact that you are clinging to a throwaway anecdote from a 2007 column about Clarence Thomas as your big “gotcha” on Sowell says it all. You are treating a light personal remark about a friend as if it were a rebuttal to decades of economic research. It isn’t.

    Your own words prove my point. You concede that the Austrian school critique was irrelevant. You dismiss Argentina and Greece as tangential. And yet you still have not produced one, single, sourced, substantive refutation of Sowell’s actual economic or social analysis. You just keep tossing out vague assertions. Hoover “thinkers” are biased toward corporate power? Really? Cite a single example from Sowell’s own work to support that claim. You can’t.

    And this business about “laughable” to suggest race is not central to Sowell’s work? Nobody once suggested that race is off-limits. What I said was that you cannot simply shout “token” and call that a rebuttal. Race can be discussed without lazy ad hominem smears, but you seem determined not to try.

    You say you “get” personal responsibility and free markets. Wonderful. Then you should also “get” that if you want to be taken seriously, you have to actually engage with the arguments being made instead of circling them with insults, side topics, and travel trivia. So here is the offer: pick any specific argument Sowell has made in any of his forty-plus books, quote it, and then dismantle it with evidence. No anecdotes. No irrelevant detours. No “vibes.” Just a clean, point-by-point takedown. If you can’t or won’t do that, you have confirmed what I said from the start.

    Also, please stop trying to distract with irrelevant tangents about tariffs. I actually happen to fully agree with you on that subject, but that’s not what this exchange is (or was ever) about.

34. @Mike Hunt — All I read was you basically shouting the ‘source!!’ meme.

    No source is needed to recall that one of Sowell’s major points is that he would abolish the Fed. He literally has called it a ‘cancer.’ C’mon, that is not a serious position, yet it’s one he has held consistently. We can all lob criticism, fine (they don’t always get it right, too slow, etc.) But to suggest that we don’t need an independent central bank, a lender of last resort, etc. Bad idea.

    I’d argue, before these self-imposed tariffs, J. Powell got us through the worst of the pandemic and the related global inflation, as best as any Fed chair could have.

    What say you? Now, if you just call me names and repeat yourself, that’d be kinda silly… It’d be nice to actually hear some ideas from you. Like, where are we heading with this economy/world?

35. Not gonna lie, fellas, I’mm’a little disappointed that you gave up here… it’s okay, we can start this back up, anytime. Bah!

36. One more try: Sowell opposes ‘rent control.’ While I see how it can impact supply, increase prices for the rest of the available housing in an area, until supply meets demand, we do need to have some way for those that cannot afford it to have shelter. Of course, we could also increase the minimum wage so that people could afford market rates, but I’mm’a guess y’all and Sowell don’t want that either. Alright, so there’s some ‘low hanging fruit’ for yous, if you ever wanna chitchat again.