Yes, I also thought of that as well. :) I didn't feel like exploring how that interrelates to other classes like the disabled in complex ways though[1], so omitted it.

Edit: s/included that as well/thought of that as well/

1: Do the disabled benefit from this association and the voting power of the elderly, and if so how much of our cultural wish to help the disabled is rationalization after the fact?

Companies need to make money to keep existing, the same way we need to breathe.

If you've ever had a tyrannical boss, you'll see sometimes the company is just their fiefdom. Feeding their ego is their prime motivation and organizing principle for the company - not generating money.

I still don't understand why people are under the impression that Uber doesn't care about its customers while Lyft somehow does.

I've watched a few of Kalanick's talks and he seems like a motivated engineer who actually cares about efficient transportation.

working almost 40 hours of week for only one company as a contractor _is_ illegal. In the eyes of the IRS you are an employee, not a contractor. But this is illegal for the employer rather than the employee in this case.

Well I live a lot further away than Oakland. I commute from along the 680 corridor which is further than may are willing to endure, I think. Luckily there's still quite a lot of affordable housing in safe neighborhoods in San Leandro, Hayward and El Cerrito (to name a few), all of which are much shorter commutes than mine.

But the more general answer to your question: When supply outstrips demand the only reasonable response is to build more housing.

Complaining that driving jobs have low value isn't constructive. The value of those jobs will approach zero soon due to technology. Instead, address the economic imbalance and let supply meet the demand.

Walnut Creek

I prefer the assumption that people tend to be rational actors who account for their own costs than the assumption that there is some group of people able to rationally prescribe actions and account for the costs of other people they have never met.

Whoever wants to be in the business owns the cars, like every other rental/service offering. Whatever the liability challenges, they are likely less than current cars-with-drivers, after removing human error, emotions, and criminality.

You aren't likely to want to own your own self-driving car in a major city, unless you're an eccentric rich person, or a car hobbyist, or a old fogie. Urban garage/parking space is expensive for an asset that's idle 22+ hours of every day, and fueling/maintenance/looking-for-parking are likely not the best marginal use of your time.

What's your dislike of "something used by tens of thousands of unknown people", as long as it's well-maintained? Do you avoid libraries, sidewalks, parks, airports, shops, and restaurants?

Right now, Uber and other transport-network-providers are becoming "people I know and trust", because their systems have consistently delivered quick, clean, reasonably-priced rides across many times/places. App-dispatching a suitable-quality autocar from the nearest competitive local provider is going to save a lot of time/energy/pollution, compared to coordinating loaners from friends/family.

If transport regulators like city councils and taxi commissions were better at this sort of thing, they'd have bootstrapped a similarly rapid and ubiquitous ride-service years earlier, using their unique governmental coordination powers. Instead, they let a patchwork of inferior alternatives fester for decades.

I'm not sure of the eventual market structure of autocar-dominated city streets. Automation and standardization might make room for many providers, or just a few. Regulators could easily screw things up, by locking in specific practices or incumbent providers based on early guesses, biases, and corruption.

We'll just have to let lots of things be tried and see what works. For rapidly exploring the possibility space, the vigorous investor-fueled competition we're seeing now is very helpful.

I don't know. The Wikipedia article is pretty short and sparse. There is a short list of "examples of alleged predatory pricing," but that doesn't seem to support the certainty with which the economic theory is generally presented.

Even in non-empirical economic theory, the idea doesn't sound particularly obvious or sound to me. Obviously predatory pricing by a large firm can drive small firms out of business, but the large firm doesn't actually make profit from that until they raise their prices again, which sends a signal to others to start competing. And yes, there are barriers to entry, but it doesn't seem like the resources a small firm spends to enter a market would be destroyed when that firm gets driven out of business by the large firm's predatory pricing. Assets will get liquidated, sold to someone else, and potentially used to start competing again when the large firm raises its prices.

They're still employers, even if the drivers are independent contractors. The name doesn't change.

Globally private car ownership is soaring, especially in countries such as China where public modes of transportation have long been dominant. Self driving cars will be great, I can't wait to own one, but I disagree that renting something that I use on a daily basis will be clearly cheaper than owning. Short term rents for similar quality are generally more costly than purchases or long term leases. Renting furniture and appliances is usually something poor people do in spite of it being more expensive in the long run, because as Michael Caine said, "Poor people can't afford good deals." One thing that's true is that people are getting poorer in America. Maybe that will force many of them into higher cost rentals. But I don't see the people on the waiting list for Teslas deciding that don't want one. A self driving Tesla makes it more desirable, not less. Cars are one of the major ways people express their sense of aesthetics and status. People don't have to buy Apple iPhones or Burberry clothes, but they do. The most iconic brands deliver the highest profits.

Rental cars carry costs that I don't have with my own vehicle: frequent transactions, additional liability issues, wasted mileage driven between fares, uncertain transit times, daily cleaning and inspection for damage, commercial licensing and insurance, middle men, management, marketing, accounting, additional taxes, regulations, and covenants. If I leave something important in my car, it's still there the next day. I don't have to worry about vomit in the backseat. I don't face a transaction cost and a delay (or the uncertainty of a no show) to go to work, to drive home, to hop in the car and go to the mall, or grab a bite. I can leave things in my car. I have less exposure to pathogens and pests from surfaces in revolving contact with thousands of strangers from all over the world, lower probability of exposure to cold and flu viruses, fewer vectors for bedbugs to travel into my home.

I can't see rent seekers (esp short term ones) being so far under my costs that after adding their markup, it will be particularly cheaper for me. The 5 year TCO for a Prius (staple of the ridesharing industry) according to Edmunds is a little over $18 a day at 41 miles per day, 44 cents/mile inclusive of insurance, gas, maintenance, etc. The average fare mile on the Peninsula for a cab is $3. I don't see ridesharing companies finding an order of magnitude in efficiencies and still delivering any kind meaningful profit.

Maybe private toilets will seem quaint and ostentatious, and we'll be soon freed from the tyranny of private bathrooms by happier times of public lavatories.