Recent comments in /f/news

ChibiRay t1_jdbzz1f wrote

Reply to Alameda passes delivery fee cap even as Uber threatens exit by Xanthn

I don't understand why something like this is necessary in the first place. This sounds like something capitalism would naturally work through on its own. If fees are too high, then the consumers would choose to not order through Uber? If fees hurt restaurants too much, then restaurants can choose to not do business through Uber. If delivery drivers aren't getting paid to their satisfaction, they can choose to not work for Uber? I don't understand why these legislations keeps coming up trying to regulate how a business should do its business. If it's really a shit business and everyone else is getting the short end of the stick, then that business would naturally go bankrupt when people choose to leave and if those people continue to choose to work with that business, then it's on them and I don't think they have the right to complain...

−5

Xanthn OP t1_jdbys7g wrote

Reply to comment by Romanian_ in Alameda passes delivery fee cap even as Uber threatens exit by Xanthn

I wonder if them giving bonuses to sign up drivers and the amount of money that the CEO and other execs get paid actually make a difference in the loses. I mean somehow the CEO got around $20 million in 2021, $40 million odd a few years earlier, and since a lot of that seems to be related to stock, others also would be getting millions. Something doesn't then add up, how are they not making money and still pay out this sort of money?

Edit: spelling.

6

Romanian_ t1_jdbxwd3 wrote

Reply to comment by Xanthn in Alameda passes delivery fee cap even as Uber threatens exit by Xanthn

These are mostly public listed companies, their financial reports are available. None of the delivery / ride-sharing companies really make profits. That's the reality, not some made up stunt, like you claim.

Uber as a whole had 2 profitable quarters in 14 years. Uber Eats as a subsidiary recently broke even for the first time. Lyft, Door Dash, Postmates etc - are not profitable.

2

RGB755 t1_jdbxpqi wrote

Reply to comment by ultima-ratio-populi in Hundreds Evicted in Isla Vista by New Landlord - The Santa Barbara Independent by Croughman

You don’t need crazy high home ownership rates to get the situation under control though. In Germany they’re working on a temporary rent cap to go on top of existing market regulations.

In France they’ve passed laws to tie rent increases to energy efficiency investments.

Plenty of sensible approaches exist to regulate the rental market, some countries just don’t have the political will to use them.

15

ultima-ratio-populi t1_jdbrv00 wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Hundreds Evicted in Isla Vista by New Landlord - The Santa Barbara Independent by Croughman

If people were free they wouldn't pay rent. Not every country is afflicted with rampant landlordism. Countries with high home ownership have negligible levels of homelessness. Hoarding the housing supply is not ethical. If you take something everybody needs and put it on the market, the price will necessarily go too high for some people to afford it. Something everybody needs, you're advocating for denying that for the sake of preservation of the livelihood of worthless parasites. The threat of homelessness to preserve profiteering, that's your idea of freedom.

27