The 'gig' economy is simply a part of the ultimate plan to have no workers whatsoever, a desire that is regularly rolled out at such enlightened events like Davos conferences. It started, and continues, with outsourcing anything that can be, but they ran into a roadblock when it became clear that it's very to difficult to outsource the service economy. This, and automation, are their answers. While I agree in principle with improving taxi services, whatever you may call them, this is not a business model I am willing to participate in. It's creating a subservient class of unattached workers that do the same jobs but with less pay and essentially no benefits.
I'm sure, based on articles about Uber's investments and interest in autonomous vehicles, that any drivers/independent contractors whatsoever will soon be eliminated. Anyone that gets in a vehicle without a driver is a fool. While human drivers have their issues, at least I know who to blame, and where to send the bill, if I'm in an accident. I suspect that regardless of ultimate cause, if you were injured, or dropped off in the middle of nowhere, the labyrinth of legal issues that would ensue would take a millennial into ripe old age.
The typical Silicon Valley answer to all of the issues of displaced workers is to suggest a welfare state for all, with some universal income. This is so impractical on a large scale as to be ridiculous, and politically a non-starter.
1
If Uber is a taxi service in Europe, it is a taxi service in the United States and should be treated accordingly by government agencies here.
4
I fail to understand the controversy.
Simply put: Uber, Lyft, etc. are disruptive technological advances for the taxi industry But, at the end of the day, they are taxi services.
Regulate taxis, regulate Uber.
3
Excellent! Uber is a scam and a sham.
3
Here is how to have a true ride-sharing service. Create an app. All people who want to be drivers pay a fee every month for access to the app (which has the customers), lets say $25/per month. Customers who want a ride check this app, which is free for customers to use. Whoever shows up to give the customer a ride is whoever shows up, at the price the driver and customer have agreed upon.
Uber wants all the control, but doesn't want to play by any of the regulations or rules, to maximize their profits two ways. One, by not paying benefits to their driver employees and two by skirting government regulations. Every single person who uses Uber is complicit in this, if there were no customers, Uber would not exist. And here in the comments, we have some Uber customers defending Uber and its practices. Uber has really done a number on you, as you are now defending parasitic psychopathic business practices. Anything so you can get your cheap and convenient car ride. This is what is wrong with America. The mindset of "I'm gonna get mine" is just too entrenched in the country's psyche.
5
Uber is successful because the traditional Taxi model is rife with micro-corruption. Everyone has had the Taxi experiences of added on fees, Tip indignation, meandering routes, and sticky seats.
Until taxi's follow the customer friendly, open transparency of Uber they will continue to struggle.
1
Uber is not doing anything different from a Cab company that could also be equipped with equivalent software... The only difference is the cab companies have to follow rules / laws / regulations in the cities they operate in; while Uber refuses to follow any rules / laws... I have a hard time understanding how people can be so naive and support this disgusting company. Glad the EU courts ruled against them.
3
Seems the rest of the world is not as tolerant as the US when it comes to corporate scofflaws cheaters and deadbeats. Boo hoo, Uber!
1
It is about time. At least Europe is getting it right. It amazes me how cities in the US charge one entity to operate via medallions and regulations and totally turn a blind eye to Uber and Lyft.
2
Not recognizing online services like UBER, because they operate on a new model, is dangerous. For seniors and others who don't drive for reasons of health or economic inability to own a car, UBER is a lifeline. In my area drivers use their own cars, and are driving for many reasons -- mostly because they need the income, and the model fits their need for flexibility. Their earnings go right into the economy. If, or where, UBER has strayed from this model, it should be curtailed. Let's not be so righteous, when we don't know what we are talking about!
This is excellent news.
Uber and other "ride share" companies have added tens of thousands of extra cars to the daily traffic in San Francisco and even more to the general traffic in the Bay Area.
A local broadcast columnist, Stanley Roberts, does a video segment called "People Behaving Badly." In his segment, he routinely cites these private taxi drivers for using their emergency flashers to double park while waiting for passengers. He sarcastically refers to their use of emergency flashers as "my park wherever I want lights." He goes on to show the annoying and unsafe sights we see daily here: Uber and Lyft drivers making illegal u-turns, double parking, parking in bus zones, bike lanes, and blocking crosswalks, while waiting for passengers.
It is no longer possible to drive through San Francisco without encountering gridlock around any public venue, due to the massive addition of these cars on the road.
The "ride share" companies are private taxi companies and should be regulated and taxed as such.
4
Doesn't begin to even shed light on what Uber has done in other places, such as I believe Nigeria, as reported in these pages. Drivers took out loans to buy cars within the 10 year age limit. Then Uber started a cheaper service without the 10 year age limit requirement. The drivers with the newer cars started losing business. Bigger problem: the banks had access to their Uber accounts and as soon as they saw their revenue drop off they called the loans on the cars.
2
This will not necessarily work out the way the taxi drivers intend. The argument is that Uber has too close a contractual relationship with "its" drivers. Its solution may well be to loosen that link, so that Uber becomes more like a website that links the user with a number of plumbers or gardeners (this is seen as legal). So drivers must become more clearly independent contractors, setting their own rules, and less as disguised employees, following central rules.
I use Uber and Via quite a bit in NYC.
I always envisioned that these were independent drivers, using their own vehicles, scratching out a living in the gig economy.
Maybe that's how things originally started, but now most of the vehicles are owned by half dozen large fleet companies who have the financial resources to purchase and maintain large SUV's etc.
That being the case, they should fall under the same regulatory structure as taxi cabs
3
Companies like uber don't add anything new in value to the economy really. They just divert resources already spent on a sector of the economy to their own pockets and Wall St.
They shouldn't be regulated any different than companies doing the exact same thing. Same goes for the rest of Silicon Valley and Wall Street.
Look at Apple selling weak products embedded with planned obsolescence to a US population that doesn't even get the income from making the products to afford to buy them. The Henry Ford model is much more sustainable and also more profitable.
5
I liked the British suggestion of "dependent contractors" to remove the notion that workers for these new companies are supposedly just passing strangers.
As gig-type work expands, we're going to probably start seeing what a new labor union movement will look like here - not the unions that would organize employees within a company's payroll, but that will provide some power for people who are fundamentally kept at arms-length by their varied employers.
3
regulation typically follows innovation. governments aren't in the business of dreaming up the "next best thing". i think Uber's goal is driverless vehicles. no employees or contractors = no issues.
2
Sorry, I disagree:
http://londonprogressivejournal.com/article/655/the-biggest-lie-in-the-w...
1
Don't worry, Uber. The Trump Administration and the Republicans have your back.
4
We only rice UBER because its cheap. THISE GIG ECONOMY people are basically slaves we don't mind exploiting.
5
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-16/four-of-the-most-expl...
I'm really surprised that the recently disclosed rampant criminal activity of this outfit hasn't been front page news in every paper.
6
A cab driver is a cab driver, whatever they want to call themselves. Europeans aren’t stupid.
10
The European judiciary and politicians, it seems, actually care about the safety and livelihood of working people, unlike the greedy sewer rats we have in high public office.
10
Good decision. If only the U.S. were as committed to protecting its citizens.
9
"[A]typical work arrangements that companies use to cut costs." You mean exploitation of workers by greedy corporations?
5
Once they drive Uber out of business, all those gig economy folks will just have nothing to show in their wallets. I mean, we've all been flocking to Uber because it's just such an awful, dangerous, unreliable, expensive service.
6
The fact that it’s convenient for you or me Dave, doesn’t mean that it should be given free rein. The people who drive for them (and don’t get retirement, sick leave, health insurance and paid holidays etc.) as well as others who may be affected by Uber’s business model, need to be taken into account.
The “gig economy” is not working for anyone other than the owners/managers of businesses and their shareholders.
Any society that functions effectively for only a small fraction of its population is unsustainable in even the medium term, forget about the short term.
The ECJ’s decision was the correct one.
14
These government-knows-best nanny-state hacks are trying to tell free people what is best for them. No drivers were enslaved or forced to work. The grad student in the story was not prevented from getting supplemental insurance in case of injury. And the poor baby that didn't get "holiday pay", seriously. I'm pretty sure you knew that was not part of the arrangement when you hired on. The EU will keep suffering a downward spiral as they choke themselves on regulation and constrain the freedoms of their people.
8
Lenore's husband:
The fact that people are desperate enough to accept any dismal pay & conditions offered, & lack the bargaining power to negotiate for fair treatment doesn't justify the exploitive, usurious practices that are becoming increasingly prevalent in today's job market.
13
Ok bring back slavery sponsored by Goldman Sachs
6
Yea, that downward spiral of more effective health care, better retirement and stronger worker and environmental protections really do constrain the freedoms of their people.
6
Great decision by the ECJ. I hope and pray for the day when Americans will start realizing that "regulation" is not a dirty word.
28
The "gig" economy or "sharing" economy (stupid name, chosen to hide the darker side of what's going on) is the hulking behemoth beneath the reflective surface of capitalism right now.
The McKinsey data linked in the article states some 30% of the US workforce is independent workers, with some 30% of them doing so out of necessity instead of preference. About 1 in 10 of our workers is already in an unstable job with no benefits, paying the entirety of FICA taxes, while those who own the companies that operate this economy get to "disrupt" the market by not following the laws and regulations that exist for the already established companies in their segment, all the while offloading many of the costs and risks onto the "sharers" themselves?
This segment is only going to get bigger. If "economic anxiety" brought us President Trump, what's going to happen when 50% or more of our workers are independent? I'm guessing people are fairly economically anxious when they are paying a higher effective federal tax rate than Mitt Romney yet barely squeaking above the poverty level.
15
The reason I use Lyft and not taxis is mostly because of the dispatch time difference rather than cost.
With taxis you call one company and it sends one of its taxis only; this can take up to half an hour or more. With Lyft you get the closest car, period.
Why can't the taxi companies employ a central dispatching system that would send you the closest car, regardless of company? If done honestly (I admit, a big "if" for taxi companies!) this would go a long way towards leveling the playing field.
At least it might keep taxis alive until Uber and Lyft raise their prices after they run out of the VC capital that currently makes up for their rather substantial losses.
8
I still call a cab instead of Lyft or Uber because I don't want to support the overlords of the sharecropping economy. Unlike with clothing and a lot of other things where it's harder for Americans to dodge supporting sweatshop labor, we can do it pretty easily with taxis still. In the face of that, waiting 30 minutes isn't such a big deal. Having said that, that's a good idea, but I'm assuming cab companies don't do this for the same reason Uber or Lyft don't alert each other's drivers.
12
You are still using a "taxi." Perhaps it is a more efficient taxi but it is no less a taxi than the yellow cabs that don't do the job so well.
Who drives your "taxi" should still get a living wage and benefits from driving a "taxi."
4
What about Curb and Arro?
"Policymakers around the globe have been struggling with how to frame rules for a new style of employment, as rapidly shifting business models outpace regulations that for decades were formulated around traditional 9-to-5 jobs."
Historically, those 'rapidly shifting business models' were often designed to circumvent labor standards and justify lower pay. During its rise, Microsoft became notorious for it reliance on 'independent contractors' who did the same work as 'regular employees' but did not receive the same kinds of stock grants or options. Years of litigation, and a Federal court ruling, were required in order to compel Microsoft to change its policies and provide equal pay for equal work.
Uber seems likely to require the same.
15
I don't know if Sweden is a good example, Uber prices in Stockholm are same as regular taxi companies. I suspect it is already regulated.
5
Uber Pop service in Sweden was shutdown after the Swedish Tax Authorities audited some 100 Uber drivers. To their «surprise» only 1% of the drivers paid taxes on their income.
4
Another excellent responsible free market decision by the EU. Wish the US could manage the same excellent responsible free market decisions rather than the crony capitalism we have.
Uber and taxis are the same. Period. If Uber doesn't like taxi regulations, they can join with taxi companies and work to get the regulations changed. What matters is the level playing field.
Uber provides a great service in being able to electronically hail a cab via an app, and that innovation should be recognized. However that doesn't mean they're in some kind of different market from taxi cabs.
31
Great deal, you buy the car, insurance, oil, gas, tires, repairs and then you give money to the app owner.
The worker is buying the capital.
31
Uber is not a "ride hailing app". Uber is not a "ride hailing company", there is no such thing.
Uber is a pirate taxi service conceived to make money by circumventing rational regulation of the taxi industry. The perpetration of this fraud is done by taking advantage of the poor comprehension of why correct English grammar is so important that most Americans live with and by criminal enterprise of using technology to avoid and otherwise thwart regulators.
There is only one thing new about Uber, the dispatch method. Otherwise they are a pirate service using unknown drivers and vehicles that have not been inspected.
The arguments in favor of them because of the experiences of the people who use it are almost the same sort of reviews a drug dealer would get. Most consumers of illicit drugs survive and get what they wanted out of them. Is that really how you want to decide what should be legal to do and what shouldn't?
There is a very valid reason for the regulation of livery services. If those regulations are not effective then change them so that they are don;' throw them out and leave us all open to the depravity of an unregulated system which as Uber has shown repeatedly over many years they will exploit without mercy regardless of who it harms.
27
Yeah, nobody likes Uber, well, except for the millions of daily riders who love being abused by this company.
4
The private hire of a car to take me from Point A to Point B is a "taxi" no matter whether I use an app or my raised arm to hail one. And "cab-drivers" are people who drive my "taxi" no matter whether they are private contractors or employees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pJPIx8FFqk
26
This company is the very definition of a parasite.
42
Conceived as and intended to be a crime from the very start.
20
Have never used it and never will. And shame on our political representatives that they sold taxi drivers down the river without a thought - leaving them burdened with costly regulations and letting Uber off completely. Shame on them.
8
Or scabs. Or gypsy cabbies.
2
Taxi regulations are more akin to a protective guild for the protection of taxi interests than an effort towards consumer protection.
Uber tried, and seems somewhat failed, to take on these entrenched interests. Too bad for the EU.
Luckily, the U.S. is a bit more free-market in orientation.
11
luckily for who? the riders paying less, on the backs of the gig economy drivers with absolutely no protections?
there was just an NPR story about UPS and FedEx drivers -- I didn't realize how hard they have it, they are getting squeezed to the max
19
That may be the case, but not the point. The point is that a taxi is a taxi regardless of its iteration. The free market is a religion that needs tempering. A little emulation here would be advisable.
16
Indeed as most regulation is about ensuring a safe ride, just one that you can't compete against. And this ruling shows it works.
1
At least the EU has a little sense. All these "digital" companies act like they are reinventing the wheel when really they are just coming in, breaking laws, and unfairly competing and undercutting the competition. How is Uber not a taxi service? AirBnb, bye Felicia!
37
Uber is in a funny spot. They started out positioning themselves as just a "technology platform", you know, just a way for independent drivers to get connected to passengers.
But rut roh, their business model called for Uber to determine the pay for every trip and collect the money. Then there was the pesky insurance issue. Insurance companies stepped forward to point out that your basic auto insurance wouldn't cover a driver engaged in driving for pay. So, Uber got into insuring the drivers. Then, there were a few problem drivers and the market expected Uber to vet them and make sure they weren't, you know, shooting diplomats or anything. Next thing you know, Uber is "firing" non employee drivers.
Little by little, Uber has gotten itself into quacking and walking like a duck and regulators are starting to notice.
46
Uber was a sham from the beginning. Regulators turned a blind eye to it, to their eternal shame.
6
Watch out AirBnB, you may be next.
37
We can only hope. I live in fear of the prospect of ANY of my neighbors turning their homes in our decent residential neighborhood into for-hire party barns. Zoning regulations are there for very good reasons.
9
I've been wondering why Uber has been able to get away with ignoring so many regulations and laws that apply to labor and transportation. When Uber is discussed as if it were a real business rather than a pirate operation I am amazed. When workers at Uber complain about harassment and mistreatment I think it is kind of like being upset about working conditions in organized crime. I guess laws only have meaning for us little people, not the swashbuckling innovators that have brought us so many fabulous disruptions.
50
Taxi companies, secure in their monopolies, left a gap into which competitors could provide better, cheaper service. Once they got a toehold, they were too popular to just kill. Warts and all, everybody I know prefers Uber et al to cabs.
1
Gypsy cab dispatch company...
11
Please, please let Airbnb be next.
29
It will be a marvelous day if and when they try to take that money-pit public. Here's hoping every bro involved loses his shorts.
12
Uber is a transportation company??? I thought they delivered pizza! Yay for regulating the morally bankrupt disrupters.
27
The private hire of a car to take me from Point A to Point B is a "taxi" no matter whether I use an app or my raised arm to hail one. And "cab-drivers" are people who drive my "taxi" no matter whether they are private contractors or employees.
Well-done, Europe!
51
Fancy linguistics by new age economy companies can change the face of what they really are and Uber/Lyft are nothing more than taxi companies that use an app to allow you to hail the cab rather than standing on the street and raising your arm.
16
Well, if you're taking money you're not really "sharing" anything.
14
Really - a total con - "ride-sharing" - as if you were going there anyways so I might as well give you a lift. Fraudulent.
2
So the title to this article says it is a "major setback" for Uber yet the company says "it already operated under the transportation law of most European countries in which it did business, and that the ruling would have little impact."
Ms. Alderman provides no supporting analysis or expert statement supporting her contention this a a "major setback" and contradicting the company's contention "that the ruling would have little impact." This seems like shoddy journalism to me.
5
I usually don't expect company PR to come out and agree they have a problem. You?
4
I usually expect a reporter doing her job would rebut such easily refutable PR with analysis or expert opinion. You??
2
Not a biggie, I did the research for Ms Alderman. Where the UK is concerned, it appears that applicants must be in possession of a Private Hire license -- just like with driving for any other taxi company.
There are however, other regulations that must be followed:
- car must have 4 doors to ensure swift exit in case of emergency;
- trunk must have a minimum size for luggage;
- car no older than 10 years...
From what I could take from the Uber website listing requirements to become a driver, they appear to comply with all British regulations for private hire indeed.
So no, it's not a "major" setback. It is still somewhat of a setback, as it is now an ECJ ruling that leaves them with no back doors.
I sure hope that the US will follow suit. At least you guys are so far down where the rights of the ordinary working man are concerned, you can barely fall any lower. Over here in Europe, although corporations are making progress in their quest to erode workers' rights, we're still looking at a potential drop equivalent to the distance between the upper tip of the Empire State and street level. Might as well jump and get it over with!
3
Of course they're taxis. What else? They're not sharing a ride...they're picking people up and taking them where they want to go. For the safety of the passengers, they need to be licensed and regulated as are other taxis.
55
Finally a common sense decision!
Uber and other ride sharing companies should be testing each driver on their local knowledge and navigational skills, some cities like London England could take anywhere from 2 to 4 years training before being granted a livery license, other jurisdictions usually require a lot less, a knowledgeable driver is far safer than someone who is constantly checking a GPS!
As for safety, most cities require a Taxi to undergo a vehicular safety check twice a year along with a meter check, all the while maintaining adequate commercial insurance.
Once a driver realizes the cost of operating legally as a livery driver they may think twice about using the family car to make a few extra bucks!
31
A great victory for inefficiency. Just because government can regulate new innovations like Uber and Lyft as if they were taxis doesn't mean that they should. The layers of obligation, permission and cost imposed add no real social value other than protectionism. Over the long term the countries that allow innovation will prosper and create employment, and the countries that stifle it will not. This should be obvious by now.
7
There's certainly an argument again over regulation. At the same time, there is a strong argument for having some protections for drivers and the public. Drivers should be able to make a reasonable wage after expenses and not be drawn into a race to the bottom between competing services. As for the public, here is one of many examples: Uber/Lyft claim they don't need to meet ADA requirements. It's absurd they can claim that they're "technology companies" so they do not need to accommodate riders with disabilities. If the service they provide is superior, let them compete on a level playing field.
31
You know, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, the chances are it *is* a duck. Uber can cal itself what it likes, but Uber does the same thing a taxi service does. So if it acts like a taxi service, it has to follow the laws other taxi services do.
Would you like your doctor not to have been properly vetted before he goes to work on you? That person says he's a healer, not a doctor, but yet he's doing surgery. Are you okay with that?
7
If Uber is creating so much "efficiency," why does it lose money on every ride? Why does it need to subsidize roughly 50% of the cost to the passenger? Historic and continuing losses in even its most mature markets seem to indicate that Uber is, by any measure, inefficient.
A business model which relies upon predatory practices with the goal monopoly pricing power doesn't strike me as particularly innovative.
21
People should remember that taxis came about during the depression as a way for out-of-work workers to desperately try and make a living.
People should remember that people offered room and board in their houses during the depression as a way to desperately try to make living.
Taxis and offering up your house to strangers are old gimmicks, which have been weaponized by a handful of Silicon Valley people to obscenely enrich themselves, based on an algorithm.
But, they're still taxis and room and board offerings, 90 years later.
57
You are so wrong in your history. Taxis existed several hundred years before The Depression. You know, like horse drawn? Ditto room and board. Yes, an uptick in both demand and supply during the depression, but historically there were always unmarried men in an often changing work force and paying room and board was common.
11
The E.C.J. absolutely made the right decision. Regulations and rules serve to protect us. Employees deserve to be protected from exploitation and customers need to be protected from being put at risk by an unsafe vehicle or driver.
If your product is worthwhile you're still going to prosper even if you are following the same rules that govern the rest of the business community. If not, well your product wasn't worth much to begin with.
47
The court is correct in determining that Uber is, in fact, a transportation company. Actually, it's a new class of company in the transportation realm. A digital connect company whose revenues are generated through the public use of self employed drivers. It's hard to believe that Uber thought it would be able to operate without regulations. It's in the riders' best interest that the transportation services provided must meet regulations that insure the physical and financial safety of both the rider and the driver. In case of an accident the driver must have adequate insurance. The auto's must be maintained properly. The drivers must exhibit a high degree of competence and their background records must be checked. Hard to believe these simple steps wished to be overlooked by various parties.
38
On my last car insurance renewal, the terms of my insurance contract specifically stated that my insurance would NOT provide coverage for me or any passengers that were riding in my car in case of accident while hiring my car out for any ride sharing companies. For those people who don't think accidents happen, let the rider beware.
15
Just because it involves an app doesn't make it digital. It still depends on lots of people wheeling around in cars with internal combustion engines and a passenger in the back seat, so please.
2
I hope the public, and local governments, turns their backs on this wretched company.
53
Is this really a major setback for Uber? It seems to me their main goal is market share, after that they can worry about compensation. It seems straight from the tech playbook: use gig-economy buzzwords to act like the rules don't apply to you, and then once you dominate the market start to agree to laws that would become a barrier to the competition. Sure, they would prefer all the profits go to themselves, but as long as they own the future it doesn't really matter.
25
Great, they are a taxi service and the "gig" economy, just a "disguise" to pay "shareholders" on the backs of the company's "independent contractors"...
42
Having a car no more qualifies a person to be a cab driver than having a hammer qualifies one to be a carpenter or having a pipe wrench qualifies one to be a plumber.
Uber has been in business since 2009 and has been hemorrhaging cash annually in billion dollar increments for years. It is a house of cards scam where some people are getting uber rich and a lot of other people are going to lose a lot of money.
67
This decision by the ECJ is the correct one. What's more, the labor issues they are grappling with are universal and apply equally to American rideshare drivers as they do to everyone else. We are talking about millions of people, worldwide, who are working full-time jobs without the benefit of employment safeguards, not to mention benefits or employer and employee rights and responsibilities. The last time I saw any kind of reliable figures on the gig economy was early this year, when it was estimated that 95 million Americans are participating in the gig economy, rather than the regular workforce, for one reason or another. If those figures are correct, that's a third of our nation, working without any protections. In 2016, the accepted figure for earnings by the average rideshare driver was $10 an hour. https://www.rimaregas.com/2017/01/02/new-year-ruminations-lucky-among-95...
At the moment, we do not have a Department of Labor that is interested in improving the lot of gig workers or, for that matter, workers of any kind. Regulations put in place by the Obama administration have been rolled back or their start date delayed pending review, along with a slew of workplace and environmental protections that are supposed to make our world better and our capacity to earn a living fairer. https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2Hk
Uber, in particular, has proven in many ways to be a company that was founded on lies and subterfuge.
78
Uber today, and with luck, Airbnb tomorrow, with Google, Apple, and Amazon soon after. These parasitic companies monetize tax-evasion and law-breaking.
Progress is not measured by how many people you put out of work or how much monopoly profits you make.
93
You forgot Facebook.
15
At heart lies whose definition of progress it is: Progress for the people or companies? I think we need to remind ourselves that companies, corporations and the like are not in the business of employing people. Their duties are to maximize shareholder value. Simple rule. If you need need to hire more people to increase shareholder value by increasing productivity, then everyone wins. But if the job can be performed 24/7 by a robot that doesn't require benefits AND shareholder values increases as expenses decrease, well, it is what it is.
5