Maybe only 27 inherited large fortunes, but many more started at a much more privileged position than anyone in the rooms Paul is talking to. Maybe they're not from billionaire families, but almost all of them come from families the top 1-3% in terms of wealth.
Who was he talking to? I have no idea what kids pg was talking to, but if it was to peers of his own kids, chances are they are already firmly in the 1%. In any case, to go from top 1-3% to the top 0.0000001% is still incredibly rare and noteworthy. Just because it is easier to do that than go from the top 50th% to the top 0.0000001% doesn't mean it is actually easy.
The answer is probably just a lot (most?) people don't sweat as much as you do. It's a solution that works for many but not all. There's also a huge uptake for ebikes, which remove a lot of the exertion component.
As an aside, when I started cycling I sweat a lot more than I do now. It is a mild form of exercise, after all. Once you get used to it, cycling at a leisurely pace takes less energy than walking.
This would make more sense if people didn't need to work to continue living. As it stands, if people get into a dire enough situation they will be forced to take work on whatever terms the company wants to offer. The reason these laws exist is to protect workers from being forced into terrible situations for a company's benefit.
Of course, the service is voluntary, but for many people the options are "work for pennies or live on the street" -- that's hardly an unforced choice. Why should the state subsidize Uber's profits, given that the state will be the one to support people who end up in poverty?
Have the lawsuits/regulation been anything that taxi companies didn't also have to deal with when they had a monopoly though? I don't really see it as disrupting the system if you just don't pay the taxes or follow the regulations of the other guy.
I'm starting to think that ride sharing is just an area where you can have a profitable, sustainable company (taxis) but not the sustained, exponential growth a company like Uber is pitching. If Uber was happy to settle for paying drivers decent (but low) wages and operate at a sustainable level they would probably be fine, but that's a death sentence for a publicly traded company in their position.
This would make more sense if a $15/hour wage was something out of step with historical wages. It's a big jump right now, but historically it's not out of step with previous periods. What were average wages at taxi companies pre-Uber?
As for self-driving, I'd be a little concerned that a ~$8/hour cost (assuming previous was around $7) puts Uber in an untenable situation, self-driving cars or not. Ultimately there still would be labor force to worry about, no? Currently, drivers are responsible for maintenance, cleanliness, etc. -- once you switch to self-driving, someone else has to do all of that.
Comparing them to taxis isn't one-for-one for this context: most municipalities had barriers to entry to prevent just anyone from running a taxi service (i.e. the medallions in NYC).
The business will do the math to figure out what they can get away with. Honestly there probably is a little political posturing here as OP said, but if they return it's because they made the math work, otherwise they'll stay gone.
