Readit NewsAs a passenger, cash is far less convenient, and paying at the end of a ride is awkward, slow, and certain to change the dynamic with the driver.
It should, but it doesn't.
Amazon is a classic example. Despite being the beneficiaries of many types of corporate welfare (including paying some full-time employees so poorly that they had to be on welfare), Amazon has paid $0 in tax a few times.
In fact, there is no meaningful relationship between Amazon's profits and taxes. Their profits go up, and sometimes their taxes actually go down[1].
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/fWL3rv40cvsIPAqSvf1wz...
This is a very common and very wrong interpretation. Taxpayers aren't subsidizing the company. Taxpayers are subsidizing themselves. In a competitive market (which all low wages jobs are in) the employer will simply pass on those savings to the consumer. Uber passes them on to riders, Walmart passes them on to shoppers, etc. There is no subsidy to the corporation. The subsidy is to society at large, which is exactly appropriate for tax money to fund.
Uber isn't going to experience margin compression in Seattle as a result of this. All they're going to do is raise their prices. The equilibrium effect of that is two-fold:
1. Fewer rides
2. More cost to Uber's customers
Uber will make less money, but only as a result of the loss of volume. They will not be making more or less money per ride. There will just be fewer rides. That's it.
