'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
'Recliner[_3_ Wrote: -
tim...;158053 Wrote: -
came into my in box via my linkedin account
posted without comment (for now)
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
Interesting. What surprises me is that Uber is deemed to be
losing money hand over fist. Not making enough profit to
provide investers with a satisfactory return is one thing.
Actually making a substantial loss is another. As Uber's
drivers are paid only a percentage of what customers are
charged, in London at least the business must show a profit
before overheads are included. Are Uber's overheads far
Uber's overheads are famously low. Why do you think Uber is making a profit
in London? It doesn't even make a profit in the US.
If Uber can't make a profit before overheads are included,
they must be grossly incompetent. Remember how the London
minicab trade works. The driver is deemed to be self-employed,
and pays for the car, insurance and petrol himself. The customer
pays Uber by credit card and Uber pays a small percentage to the
As Uber seems to have taken a huge share of the market away
from both Hackney cabs and minicabs, the number of jobs per
day must be in the thousands. Multiply that number of jobs by
an average net revenue of, say, five pounds and you arrive at a
gross income which must be more than the cost of a minimal
Uber is investing in market growth. That's where the big money goes.
subsidies drivers to get into new markets, and spends a lot on
dare say it spends a lot on political lobbying as well.
The really big losses were in China, but that's now stopped, so from now
on, the losses should taper. But it's still fighting competitive
many markets, so bottom line profits will remain illusive.
It also seems to be spending a lot on driverless technologies, as it
expects these to be cheaper than drivers within a few years. But that means
it will need to invest in the cars.-
I'm discussing the situation in London, and there is no
indication that Uber are subsidising their drivers here. I am
sceptical that they do anywhere, and I'm not persuaded
merely because it is stated on the Internet.
I'd like someone who believes that Uber are subsidising their
drivers to explain in detail how this is done.-
Google is not my friend and none of those links will
change that. -
In other words, your mind is made up, regardless of the evidence.
Not one persuaded me that Uber are genuinely
subsidising their drivers anywhere, least of all in London.
It is clear from those links that the idea of Uber's losses
arising from subsidies to drivers came from their financial
director, Guatam Gupta, who seems to have made no
attempt to substantiate the contention. As is the way of
the Internet, those unquantified assertions have been
repeated by people who are trying to pretend that they
have done original research and are in possession of
confidential information. -
It looks like you've not read many of the links then.
There is also the issue of semantics. Some of those links
show people confused by the differences between a subsidy,
a guarantee and a loss-leading market strategy.-
What confusion? Uber often pays its drivers more than the usual 80%
fare the customer paid. That's a driver subsidy, which hits Uber's bottom
line. It doesn't matter why Uber chooses to do it.
In the UK, new customers get a Â£15 discount. That's paid by Uber, not
So do you still maintain that "there is no indication that Uber are
subsidising their drivers here. I am sceptical that they do anywhere, and
I'm not persuaded merely because it is stated on the Internet"?
And if you disregard everything you read on the internet, what are you
The facetious answer to your ill-mannered question
is that I'm trying to learn the mind-set of people who
do believe everything they read on the Internet.-
And it appears that you only believe things on the internet if they are
things you believed already. If you didn't already believe it, you believe
it must be a lie. So, I ask again, why are you here? You're not going to
believe anything you don't already believe, so reading all these lies must
be very tedious for you.
The point you seem to have missed is that all those links
are repeating and elaborating on an assertion made by
someone who has a vested interest in propagating the
idea that Uber are subsidising drivers. Can you find
anywhere a confirmation by a driver that they are being
How would they even know? The customer pays Uber directly.
Can you find any verification that the
calculations quoted are valid?-
Why should I? You're the one doubting everything, with no evidence to
support your assertions. Disprove it yourself, if you can. Simply saying
you disbelieve everything you don't like doesn't count.
Another point you seem to be overlooking is that Uber
now find it necessary to advertise regularly for drivers on
LBC and on the Internet. Why do they? Almost certainly
because they are losing drivers. -
You seem to have forgotten that Uber is growing as fast as possible. That's
why it constantly advertises for both drivers and customers.
there will be significant driver turnover, but even if there wasn't, Uber
would still be advertising for more drivers.
If drivers are being
subsidised and/or paid 80% of the fare paid, why are they
leaving Uber? Why do so many phone-in programs on the
radio have drivers complain that they can't make a living
working with Uber?-
Obviously some can't. That doesn't mean that others don't. But just
because Uber feels the need to sometimes subside drivers doesn't mean that
they're well paid. Uber has a policy of reducing fares to gain market
share, which hurts driver income. Uber sometimes subsidises drivrs to
reduce this effect.
In any case, no-one has said that Uber always subsidises drivers, just that
it does so often enough to make hefty losses. This was particularly the
case in China, but that source of losses has now ceased.
Incidentally, the normal payment to drivers is 80% of the fare. It's a
subsidy when driver payments are more than that, for example when Uber
gives introductory discounts to new customers without cutting driver
payments. It's also a subsidy if drivers are guaranteed a certain level of
business, but the drivers may not see it that way.
But of course you won't accept any of this as you didn't believe it
You continue to repeat figures and assertions that you've
picked up from the Internet and present them as reliable,
proven facts. Your suggestion that because I don't believe
everything on the Internet, therefore I shouldn't use it at all
is childish nonsense.
Uber's continuing growth in London is open to question, as is
your belief that it is the reason Uber advertises for drivers.
Conversations I've had with various people, including minicab
drivers, indicate that in London the market for cabs is
becoming more settled.
Like those Internet scribes in whom you have unquestioning
faith, you have difficulty understanding what constitutes a
If Bob the plumber turns down a low paying job in December
when he is busy but in January accepts it when it is offered
again, he takes a pay cut. He does not however pay less for
his plumbing supplies in January. The fact that he gave a price
reduction has nothing to do with his suppliers, and they are not
being subsidised when they demand normal prices any more
than you subsidise Tesco by paying their normal price for milk
If Uber lease a car for £100.00 a week and rent that car
to a driver for £ 50.00 a week, that unquestionably constitutes
a subsidy. If Uber charge a customer £75.00 to Gatwick and pay
the driver £40.00, that is their normal business practice. If Uber
later find that to keep market share they need to reduce their
price to £60.00 but still find it necessary to pay the driver £40.00,
that does not constitute a subsidy. They are paying the normal
price. (I've still to find confirmation from any Uber customer that
they are being charged less than they were previously)