Summary

-Economist Ludwig von Mises long ago observed that luxury is historical in nature, so as income inequality will increase thanks to commercial success, lifestyle inequality will decrease.

Uber’s success is one of the evidences that income equality is creating a path to equality in lifestyle. A taxi drivers wait time vs customers merely requesting a car with a tap on the smartphone closes the gap between rich and poor.

-A rich man in a neighbourhood patronized by cabs vs an average man in need of transportation with quick access. A rich man not having to wait in harsh weathers vs an average or lower man getting benefits from an uber app to reduce the effects of weathers.

-Uber is even more of a lifestyle leveler.

-Bad neighbourhoods never get any attention from taxis because of fears that fares will not pay fares

-Uber has done an exceptional job with creating jobs around the United States of America as well as Canada.

-The question is are the jobs worth working for? Moreover, Uber drivers are to purchase their own vehicles as well as pay for gas to get from one destination to another. 

-So it seems that Uber drivers are not earning enough money to have a decent lifestyle for themselves not including supporting their families.

-In spite of Uber drivers not generating enough money for a decent standard of living they are also not acquiring any sort of health benefits. Uber drivers have said that on some days there not even maintaining minimum wage which has a an awful look on Uber.  

In Depth Analysis

-When looking at income inequality, Uber does provide ways to move around it. A rich man living near a hotel, patronized by cabs vs a modern man waiting long for a cab shows how unfair it is. With Uber, a modern man, or lower, can get transportation with only a few touches of a phone, regardless of surroundings

-Another example with weather; a rich man can simply wait for his cab that is close to his hotel, while a modern man would have to face the harsh elements. Uber allows the user to get a notification right when the Uber is near, minimizing the effects of the elements

-Uber drivers have no direct correlation to poverty. It do not help provide a full income for an individual, adding to the expenses of having a car which only leads to worse outcomes

-On the other hand, the government should subsidize taxi companies in order to prevent bankrupt taxi drivers, and a higher poverty rate 

-As there is an exceptional number of users waiting to be driven, and a great amount of drivers that all depend on Uber. The government should regulate Uber in order to maintain a balance

-Some days not even minimum wage is required, making Uber a fluctuating and unpredictable money making service, which should not be relied upon for decreased poverty

-All in all, Uber is not meant for a great decrease in poverty, rather money that individuals can boost their income with, if a side job