> that subsidize services at the expense of service providers (e.g. drivers, warehouse workers)
In the case of Uber/Lyft, it appears from the economics that they're subsidizing services more so at the expense of investors.
In other words, the bulk of the financial burden is in the form of burning through VC/Debt $$$ they've raised. Sure, they also have been known to try to shaft the gig workers here and there, but they're by no means the ones shouldering the bulk of the burden for the subsidizing.
Otherwise, there would be little incentive for gig workers to ever join that platform to begin with.
But FWIW - in India many drivers have been lured into taking a car loan with the promise of high returns, so as to boost supply, which results in net negative income at the end of the day/week/month, despite having worked like a machine
In the case of Uber/Lyft, it appears from the economics that they're subsidizing services more so at the expense of investors.
In other words, the bulk of the financial burden is in the form of burning through VC/Debt $$$ they've raised. Sure, they also have been known to try to shaft the gig workers here and there, but they're by no means the ones shouldering the bulk of the burden for the subsidizing.
Otherwise, there would be little incentive for gig workers to ever join that platform to begin with.