It makes sense that uber and lyft don't pay enough to cover depreciation; price falls to marginal cost for cheapest driver which is a casual irregular driver for uber who is using otherwise idle capital whose cost is sunk.
-
-
Replying to @sgodofsk
The cost of the car is sunk, but not the cost of the depreciation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @J_RtheWriter
The depreciation is sunk. It's amortization of the purchase of the car over time. Depreciation is an accrual accounting concept, important for financial reporting, but not a factor in business decision-making.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sgodofsk @J_RtheWriter
Let me amend that: to the extent that driving the car reduces its terminal value, it's relevant. The point here is that this difference is not important for people who drive for uber infrequently and/or have high time preference. But it's important for regular drivers.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @sgodofsk @J_RtheWriter
The upshot of this is irregular drivers have lower marginal costs than regular ones, which means that the price falls to THEIR cost, which is below the sustainable price for the regular drivers.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yes. It’s possible that Uber makes a good automatic stabilizer but not a great career
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.