Who said anything about making it unprofitable? It would merely be less profitable, and they won’t leave over that. They can still make a huge amount of profit from volume.
This idea that we are at the mercy of private businesses and there’s nothing we can do to control them needs to die.
We are at the mercy of private businesses until we have buy-in of the populace though.
We don’t get the buy-in by doing everything at once. Incremental change is good change. Following the path of least resistance make things incrementally better, makes people believe in the government again which allows us to pass stricter regulation.
We can spend our efforts trying to get Uber to pay a living wage. Or we can make an incremental change for rideshare drivers that makes their life better, and move on to make life incrementally better for a bunch of other people (see Mandami’s snow removal policy). The more people that Mandami is able to make life better for, the more people will be bought in.
For context…NYC’s population is 8.5million. There are an estimated 100k uber/lyft drivers in NYC. That is representative of just over 1% of the population. Mandami claims to have put $104 mil back in the pockets of drivers, that works out to about $1k per driver in NYC per year. That’s representative of a 2% raise. He did that with minimal fight/effort.
Imagine if he went for broke, what that would take. Who he’d be fighting against. Let’s say he doubled their pay. 1% of the population would have double their pay, 99% of the population wouldn’t have improvement. It feels like we’re seeing an sweeping but incremental change like this every week from Mandami. An Uber/Lyft vs. Mandami showdown would impede that. Let’s say he’s efficient and it only takes 6 months to beat them. After a year he’s raised the total wealth of the population of NYC by 2%. But by the end of his 4 year term, he’d only raise the wealth of 8% of the population.
Right now he’s raising the wealth of 1% of the population by 2% every week. In a single year, he’ll have raised 50% of the populations wealth by 2%. At the end of his 4 year term, he’ll have raised the wealth of 100% of the population twice. Since people can only vote once, I’d argue it’s better to make life better for as many people as possible. It creates a stronger movement when you lift everyone up together.
Who said anything about making it unprofitable? It would merely be less profitable, and they won’t leave over that. They can still make a huge amount of profit from volume.
This idea that we are at the mercy of private businesses and there’s nothing we can do to control them needs to die.
We are at the mercy of private businesses until we have buy-in of the populace though.
We don’t get the buy-in by doing everything at once. Incremental change is good change. Following the path of least resistance make things incrementally better, makes people believe in the government again which allows us to pass stricter regulation.
We can spend our efforts trying to get Uber to pay a living wage. Or we can make an incremental change for rideshare drivers that makes their life better, and move on to make life incrementally better for a bunch of other people (see Mandami’s snow removal policy). The more people that Mandami is able to make life better for, the more people will be bought in.
For context…NYC’s population is 8.5million. There are an estimated 100k uber/lyft drivers in NYC. That is representative of just over 1% of the population. Mandami claims to have put $104 mil back in the pockets of drivers, that works out to about $1k per driver in NYC per year. That’s representative of a 2% raise. He did that with minimal fight/effort.
Imagine if he went for broke, what that would take. Who he’d be fighting against. Let’s say he doubled their pay. 1% of the population would have double their pay, 99% of the population wouldn’t have improvement. It feels like we’re seeing an sweeping but incremental change like this every week from Mandami. An Uber/Lyft vs. Mandami showdown would impede that. Let’s say he’s efficient and it only takes 6 months to beat them. After a year he’s raised the total wealth of the population of NYC by 2%. But by the end of his 4 year term, he’d only raise the wealth of 8% of the population.
Right now he’s raising the wealth of 1% of the population by 2% every week. In a single year, he’ll have raised 50% of the populations wealth by 2%. At the end of his 4 year term, he’ll have raised the wealth of 100% of the population twice. Since people can only vote once, I’d argue it’s better to make life better for as many people as possible. It creates a stronger movement when you lift everyone up together.