> because I prefer the non profit approach that respects drivers and gives them a much higher percentage
For now. I generally prefer for-profit approaches because their motivations are far more transparent. They want to make money for the investors.
Non-profits exist to serve the wishes of the donors, which may be opaque. For instance, the Ride Austin investors might suddenly decide that they really want to focus on transportation to/from low income areas or art festivals. That would degrade service, and there would be no accountability to the customer in that regard.
Yeah I can understand that. Honestly, the non profit / coop thing is just a big part of Austin culture.
Not only are food coops a pretty big deal in Austin, but when I lived in Austin even the electricity company that I got my power from was a coop (https://www.pec.coop/) and if the coop made too much money it redistributed the profits back out as credits to member accounts. I generally ended up with one out of twelve months effectively being free because of profit credits being redistributed back out to my account.
The whole culture of coops and nonprofit service organizations is something I really miss about Austin now that I no longer live there.
With for-profit enterprises, there's generally an objective measure of how well you're doing, the bottom line.
Non profits, you can get a lot of people arguing about how to best fulfill the intents of the non-profit. In that situation, whoever argues the most persuasively or loudly wins, and it's the customers that suffer.
> if the coop made too much money it redistributed the profits back out as credits to member accounts.
This is great and all, but wouldn't that money be more effectively utilized maintaining or upgrading the grid or investing in renewable energy? Seems like the co-op model never really invests in progress.
I don't think coops are necessarily anti maintenance or investment. Obviously they have to maintain their core business just like any other business. The difference is a for profit company distributes extra profit that they have on top of their basic needs out as dividends to big investors and as salary for a CEO. On the other hand a coop distributes that same money out to all the customers.
Well in this case sure, competition is good and apparently Austin has multiple choices so everything is fine but competition is not always the answer. Competition does not seem to be the answer to public transit for example. It's not such a leap to say that ride sharing type apps might end up being replaced by a more personal and dynamic form of bus service.
For now. I generally prefer for-profit approaches because their motivations are far more transparent. They want to make money for the investors.
Non-profits exist to serve the wishes of the donors, which may be opaque. For instance, the Ride Austin investors might suddenly decide that they really want to focus on transportation to/from low income areas or art festivals. That would degrade service, and there would be no accountability to the customer in that regard.