The city has just 39 licensed cab drivers.

  • nfh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    As a whole, yeah, but top-line losses don’t mean each ride makes them less profitable. My understanding was their margins are slim enough they need a lot of rides to subsidize their fixed costs, so fewer rides means less profit, not less loss.

    If Uber is actually profitable, stopping operations in Minneapolis really should make them less so. If this isn’t them taking a small loss now because they believe they’ll avoid a bigger loss later, I can’t make sense of it.

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yes, they could make a very tiny profit from a decently sized city, but then it might encourage other cities to follow suit.

      The costs are not all fixed, covering another city means paying more support agents, having people signing up local drivers, etc. so after this change it might not even be profitable after all

      • nfh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s my point though?

        If costs like support agents that scale with rides make the rides unprofitable, their business model is upside down. Especially for Uber, I’m counting costs that scale with rides with costs per ride, vs infrastructure and truly fixed costs. Maybe they’re so close to breaking even per ride that raising costs depresses demand enough to make them unprofitable, but it seems a lot more likely they’re doing this to send a message first and foremost.