> Uber driver Juan Prado made six figures in 2021, often shuttling passengers in town for job interviews and doing frequent drop-offs near downtown tech offices. Now, he said, demand is much lower. “There are moments where you can be online, and in certain areas, it shows nothing.”
"Seattle has the nation’s most expensive Uber rides" (Seattle Times). Rides to the airport have increased 50% for me in the past year, to about $75, and it's at best twice as fast as the $3 train. I doubt it's just fewer tech jobs suppressing Uber activity since 2021.
Seattle levied taxes and fees on Uber and deliveries that are so high that it is comical. You literally will pay more in taxes and fees to the city than you’d ordinarily pay for the goods and services you are actually consuming. Like, up to 100% effective tax rates on consumption. Unsurprisingly, people noped out and now there is a new crisis because people that provided those services are underemployed or unemployed.
The politicians begrudgingly acknowledge the massive drop in business but simultaneously assert they can’t change anything because “it was the right thing to do”. Meanwhile, the people that worked in those businesses aren’t getting paid. Seattle has the highest minimum wage in the country, almost $21/hr before tips, but that is a cold comfort if there isn’t enough business to give you hours.
You and all the commenters dont see the bigger problem: too much consumption tax could be the resut of tax cuts somewhere else, on someone with a bigger lobby than ordinary consumers.
If you follow that clue (balanced taxation between capital and labor/consumption, to me, the f'ing elephant in the room), youd might not end your problem descriptions with "look how high the minimum wage is".
> politicians begrudgingly acknowledge the massive drop in business but simultaneously assert they can’t change anything because “it was the right thing to do”
> Seattle levied taxes and fees on Uber and deliveries that are so high that it is comical. You literally will pay more in taxes and fees to the city than you’d ordinarily pay for the goods and services you are actually consuming. Like, up to 100% effective tax rates on consumption. Unsurprisingly, people noped out and now there is a new crisis because people that provided those services are underemployed or unemployed.
Is there? Because my understanding is Uber-delivered goods typically weren't profitable for the providers in any case (see: ghost kitchens, with lower costs than traditional restaurants, going bankrupt because of Uber's high fees). Killing the delusion dead is probably the best outcome.
Not just rideshare, but food delivery has been practically outlawed with all the taxes and fees. We have…
Sales tax: 10.25% on prepared delivery food.
Commission cap: Apps can only charge restaurants up to 15% per order, which leads to apps passing on fees to consumers
PayUp ordinance from 2024: delivery workers must be paid at least $0.44 per engaged minute + $0.74 per engaged mile, or a minimum of $5 per offer, whichever is greater. For 2025, those rates increase to $0.45/minute, $0.77/mile, or $5.20 per offer.
I tried to order 1 pad Thai and 1 curry the other night and it was going to be over $70. Insanity.
Delivery seems expensive now because it was only ever made cheap by underpaying workers, giving them no benefits, making them cover their own car costs, and forcing them to rely on tips to survive. The truth is, having someone drive your pad thai and curry across town costs real money, and I’d rather pick it up myself than keep pretending cheap delivery was ever anything but exploitation.
>Commission cap: Apps can only charge restaurants up to 15% per order, which leads to apps passing on fees to consumers
You mean you have to pay for the delivery service you're asking for? Shocking!
IMO it should be 0% of the cost should be borne by the restaurant. You still have a sizeable amount of your convenience being distributed to all patrons of the restaurant with 15%. That's 15% too much. Pay for what you ordered. I like to go in person, I don't want to support single-use delivery waste, Currently I'm forced to foot your bill if I want to go to any restaurant.
In most major metros, an entree is easily $25. So paying $50 for your food, $15 for somebody to deliver it to you, and $5 in taxes is really not all that crazy
Leaving Seattle 10 years ago was the best decision of my life. Awful weather, high prices, physical isolation, traffic. It had a good job market, though... Without it, I don't know what's left.
The irony of the fabled Seattle complaints of the “freeze” is it’s not unique to the region whatsoever and due to so many transplants in the past 15-ish years along with so many locals forcibly relocating out of the city people are more likely than ever to be interacting with those that moved as adults / other transplants.
For me as someone that grew up in the region the people, nature, and weather are sufficient enough for me. Having lived in several other large metro areas in the US I’ve pretty much felt like an alien species even though it’s not like I don’t feel welcome. In the PNW being weird and unconventional is kind of celebrated regardless of socioeconomic castes historically, but that’s certainly eroded as the problems of hyper growth have strained everyone.
Anywhere that isn't cold, gray and rainy 8 months of the year. And please don't say "Seattle isn't that rainy in total precipitation volume" - I lived there for close to a decade and know its weather very well. I had never had seasonal depression spells in my life before (or after) living in Seattle.
When interest rates again are low, money is cheap, people will look for ways to make money on money, there will be another boom and massive demand for people.
It's not becuase of interest rates (or section 174 or H1Bs or whatever boogeyman you want)
Microsoft, Amazon, and other firms have been steadily moving out of Seattle for the past several years - first doing domestic offshoring in Tier 2 metros like RTP, DMV, and Denver and after that to dramatically expanding their already significant presence in the CEE and India.
A lot of people on work visas who were impacted during the initial COVID visa issues were PMs, EMs, and other mid-level managers who when they shifted back to their home country were given P/L and product responsibilities, and as such the center of gravity has left Seattle.
On top of that, local Seattle area politicians strangled the golden goose by becoming populist tech haters - great for winning an election, but did nothing for the Seattle or Washington economy.
I can't get archive.is to work with this, but if you're subscribed to Apple News+ (e.g. through the Apple One bundle), you can read it here: https://apple.news/AWYHVpxN6QQWlM1h__Hp9nA
1. The tech companies knew an H1B price change was coming
2. They offshored and front-loaded their H1B hiring
3. AI means much smaller teams, they will just hire 01
The damage has been done, American workers are just bag holders.
Most companies began opening offices abroad with P/L and roadmap ownership responsibilities during the initial Covid layoffs, because the first employees cut were those on work visas. Despite the stereotypes on this forum, this included a lot of PMs, EMs, and Principal Engineers.
When companies began rehiring during the COVID recovery, they began rehiring these former employees, but giving them a significant salary premium while allowing them to open and manage entire offices abroad. On top of that, CEE, Israel, and India all give massive subsidizes and roll the red carpet for companies to open high headcount offices which made it easier to do this move.
Now in 2025, you can see the 75th percentile of TCs in India and Romania in the $50k-60k mark and the 90th percentile breaking the $75k-85k mark, so it's not only cheap back office work.
The median household income in the Greater Seattle Area is $121k [0] and the median house sale price is $775k [1].
This means the median income to house ratio is roughly 1:5.5
This is fairly standard across the US, and was true even 20 years ago.
For example, in 2000 the median household income ($46k [2]) and house price (~$240k [3]) ratio was roughly 1:5.5. This ratio held true in 2024 as well with a median household income of $83k [2] and a median house price of ~430k [3].
As such, the cost of buying a house as a ratio of household income hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the perception.
I can't find too much direct historical data on this, but this article says the price to income ratio for Seattle in 1998 was 2.5, and their chart says the 50th percentile was around 3.0 in that year. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/price-to-income-ratios-are...
Edit: This page has a historical slider that you can go back and see the price to income ratio of various metro areas over time. If you go back to the late 90s you will see overwhelming dark blue (dark blue is <3.0). https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/son-2025-price-to-income-map
Readit News
"Seattle has the nation’s most expensive Uber rides" (Seattle Times). Rides to the airport have increased 50% for me in the past year, to about $75, and it's at best twice as fast as the $3 train. I doubt it's just fewer tech jobs suppressing Uber activity since 2021.
The politicians begrudgingly acknowledge the massive drop in business but simultaneously assert they can’t change anything because “it was the right thing to do”. Meanwhile, the people that worked in those businesses aren’t getting paid. Seattle has the highest minimum wage in the country, almost $21/hr before tips, but that is a cold comfort if there isn’t enough business to give you hours.
Seattle is not run by serious people.
You and all the commenters dont see the bigger problem: too much consumption tax could be the resut of tax cuts somewhere else, on someone with a bigger lobby than ordinary consumers.
If you follow that clue (balanced taxation between capital and labor/consumption, to me, the f'ing elephant in the room), youd might not end your problem descriptions with "look how high the minimum wage is".
What was the rationale?
Is there? Because my understanding is Uber-delivered goods typically weren't profitable for the providers in any case (see: ghost kitchens, with lower costs than traditional restaurants, going bankrupt because of Uber's high fees). Killing the delusion dead is probably the best outcome.
Sales tax: 10.25% on prepared delivery food.
Commission cap: Apps can only charge restaurants up to 15% per order, which leads to apps passing on fees to consumers
PayUp ordinance from 2024: delivery workers must be paid at least $0.44 per engaged minute + $0.74 per engaged mile, or a minimum of $5 per offer, whichever is greater. For 2025, those rates increase to $0.45/minute, $0.77/mile, or $5.20 per offer.
I tried to order 1 pad Thai and 1 curry the other night and it was going to be over $70. Insanity.
You mean you have to pay for the delivery service you're asking for? Shocking!
IMO it should be 0% of the cost should be borne by the restaurant. You still have a sizeable amount of your convenience being distributed to all patrons of the restaurant with 15%. That's 15% too much. Pay for what you ordered. I like to go in person, I don't want to support single-use delivery waste, Currently I'm forced to foot your bill if I want to go to any restaurant.
I'm not convinced that food delivery is a net good for a culture, but that is a different discussion.
For me as someone that grew up in the region the people, nature, and weather are sufficient enough for me. Having lived in several other large metro areas in the US I’ve pretty much felt like an alien species even though it’s not like I don’t feel welcome. In the PNW being weird and unconventional is kind of celebrated regardless of socioeconomic castes historically, but that’s certainly eroded as the problems of hyper growth have strained everyone.
When interest rates again are low, money is cheap, people will look for ways to make money on money, there will be another boom and massive demand for people.
when the next recession hits we will be back at ZIRP and stay there for years
welcome to the forever-MMT economy
Microsoft, Amazon, and other firms have been steadily moving out of Seattle for the past several years - first doing domestic offshoring in Tier 2 metros like RTP, DMV, and Denver and after that to dramatically expanding their already significant presence in the CEE and India.
A lot of people on work visas who were impacted during the initial COVID visa issues were PMs, EMs, and other mid-level managers who when they shifted back to their home country were given P/L and product responsibilities, and as such the center of gravity has left Seattle.
On top of that, local Seattle area politicians strangled the golden goose by becoming populist tech haters - great for winning an election, but did nothing for the Seattle or Washington economy.
Salesforce has been laying off in a big way. Maybe they'll change their slogan from "No Software" to "No People".
1. The tech companies knew an H1B price change was coming 2. They offshored and front-loaded their H1B hiring 3. AI means much smaller teams, they will just hire 01
The damage has been done, American workers are just bag holders.
Most companies began opening offices abroad with P/L and roadmap ownership responsibilities during the initial Covid layoffs, because the first employees cut were those on work visas. Despite the stereotypes on this forum, this included a lot of PMs, EMs, and Principal Engineers.
When companies began rehiring during the COVID recovery, they began rehiring these former employees, but giving them a significant salary premium while allowing them to open and manage entire offices abroad. On top of that, CEE, Israel, and India all give massive subsidizes and roll the red carpet for companies to open high headcount offices which made it easier to do this move.
Now in 2025, you can see the 75th percentile of TCs in India and Romania in the $50k-60k mark and the 90th percentile breaking the $75k-85k mark, so it's not only cheap back office work.
This means the median income to house ratio is roughly 1:5.5
This is fairly standard across the US, and was true even 20 years ago.
For example, in 2000 the median household income ($46k [2]) and house price (~$240k [3]) ratio was roughly 1:5.5. This ratio held true in 2024 as well with a median household income of $83k [2] and a median house price of ~430k [3].
As such, the cost of buying a house as a ratio of household income hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the perception.
[0] - https://data.census.gov/profile/Seattle_city,_Washington?g=1...
[1] - https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/seattle-top-cities-home-pr...
[2] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N
[3] - https://www.fedprimerate.com/new_home_sales_price_history.ht...
Edit: This page has a historical slider that you can go back and see the price to income ratio of various metro areas over time. If you go back to the late 90s you will see overwhelming dark blue (dark blue is <3.0). https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/son-2025-price-to-income-map