6 ms·

According to the article that is indeed the case because they almost targeted with people who had subprime/no credit. And... Surprise! There was a reason they

• jandrese 9y ago
  It's just like the housing bubble. Risky bets turn out to be risky. Putting a whole bunch of risky bets together doesn't reduce the risk, it just makes the problem bigger when it crashes. In some ways this could be seen a very charitable on Uber's part. They're giving these people who don't have the personal assets a chance to work for a living despite their past behavior. If you're willing to concede that the company is willing to take risk to help the most disadvantaged people, then the only thing I can fault them on is doing it at the wrong end of the equation. They should have had the people make conventional leases at the higher rates and then tack on a "lease premium" on the fares they collect (supplied by Uber, not the passengers) to help pay for the car. This would prevent them from going to work for Lyft (where they wouldn't get the bonus money) but still gain the advantage of a steady job and hopefully get their credit back in order in time.