Options

[Uber]: Disrupting Livery Service (And Ethics)

17810121381

Posts

  • Options
    AstaleAstale Registered User regular
    For years those 'larger companies' have used those regulations as a way to make it difficult for competition to enter the field.

    They don't want to remove them.

    They really should be removed though. Regulation as a way to stifle competition is a bullshit strategy that infests far too many markets.

  • Options
    zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Astale wrote: »
    For years those 'larger companies' have used those regulations as a way to make it difficult for competition to enter the field.

    They don't want to remove them.

    They really should be removed though. Regulation as a way to stifle competition is a bullshit strategy that infests far too many markets.

    Well, they would probably be happy to remove the regulations on fares, insurance, inspections, etc -- the same regulations Uber happily ignores.

    But if they did remove the regulations, they are better positioned than small and independent services to adapt. As they are if things like medallion restrictions are removed.

    You would basically see the same thing you see in every other industry that deregulates - a few very large companies forcing the smaller ones out of business due to economies of scale and unethical business practices as well as higher prices and lower service overall once the competition is forced out or swallowed up.

    Sure, you'll have upstarts here and there, but most of them will be doomed to fail or operate in a niche that just isn't lucrative enough for the bigger corporations to bother with.

  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Astale wrote: »
    For years those 'larger companies' have used those regulations as a way to make it difficult for competition to enter the field.

    They don't want to remove them.

    They really should be removed though. Regulation as a way to stifle competition is a bullshit strategy that infests far too many markets.

    Well, they would probably be happy to remove the regulations on fares, insurance, inspections, etc -- the same regulations Uber happily ignores.

    But if they did remove the regulations, they are better positioned than small and independent services to adapt. As they are if things like medallion restrictions are removed.

    You would basically see the same thing you see in every other industry that deregulates - a few very large companies forcing the smaller ones out of business due to economies of scale and unethical business practices as well as higher prices and lower service overall once the competition is forced out or swallowed up.

    Sure, you'll have upstarts here and there, but most of them will be doomed to fail or operate in a niche that just isn't lucrative enough for the bigger corporations to bother with.

    Deregulation isn't bad when regulation is being used to enforce monopolies or oligopolies that are unaccountable to everyone. The reason Uber is doing so well is because the existing cab companies were shit, and the existing cab companies were shit because of a lack of actual market based competition. A medallion system is a very suspect policy.

    Uber needs to be brought to heel in terms of requiring reasonable insurance coverage and the like, but it is a fantastic demonstration that the taxi market was broken before. As an example, in London, it takes an average of 34 months of geographic training to pass the knowledge portion of the medallion requirements. A great requirement in 1900, a ridiculous farce in 2015. As advanced as navigation as getting, we're already at the point where any year now, even expert humans will be so much less effective than satellite navigation as to be entirely obsolete at that portion of the task.

    Moreover, as others have noted, we're perhaps not too far from the point where human drivers will be entirely obsolete. When self-driving cars become both economically viable and meet (or exceed, as they soon will) safety minimums, are we going to have to deal with people burning down half the city to protest the future again, or will we make the correct choice and simply automate the profession away? The entire taxi market is on borrowed time.

  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    @mcdermott

    Capital costs refer to the cost of the loan required to buy the car. (Or conversely the interest rate you could acquire were you to invest in something else rather than buy the car).

    So functionally you need to add 5%-15% of the cars purchase price per year as an additional cost.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    DaimarDaimar A Million Feet Tall of Awesome Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Astale wrote: »
    For years those 'larger companies' have used those regulations as a way to make it difficult for competition to enter the field.

    They don't want to remove them.

    They really should be removed though. Regulation as a way to stifle competition is a bullshit strategy that infests far too many markets.

    Well, they would probably be happy to remove the regulations on fares, insurance, inspections, etc -- the same regulations Uber happily ignores.

    But if they did remove the regulations, they are better positioned than small and independent services to adapt. As they are if things like medallion restrictions are removed.

    You would basically see the same thing you see in every other industry that deregulates - a few very large companies forcing the smaller ones out of business due to economies of scale and unethical business practices as well as higher prices and lower service overall once the competition is forced out or swallowed up.

    Sure, you'll have upstarts here and there, but most of them will be doomed to fail or operate in a niche that just isn't lucrative enough for the bigger corporations to bother with.

    It all depends on the barriers to entry. In a capital intensive industry like power generation for example it is hard for the little guys to get involved in a deregulated market but for a livery service all you need is a car, which while it isn't trivial, is much easier for a small operation to afford, especially if the dispatching function is handled by an app. Yes, R&M and other operating costs will be cheaper for the large company but it can't be eliminated or trivialized and there are also costs that a fleet taxi company will have that an Uber/Lyft operator won't have since they don't have to have a permanent garage with its utilities and property tax or an invoicing department, managers, etc. In effect, a lot of the burden of doing business is handled by Uber corporate since that kind of thing can't be downloaded onto a contractor, and since it is centralized it will see some pretty good economies of scale itself.

    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    @mcdermott

    Capital costs refer to the cost of the loan required to buy the car. (Or conversely the interest rate you could acquire were you to invest in something else rather than buy the car).

    So functionally you need to add 5%-15% of the cars purchase price per year as an additional cost.

    Ah, gotcha. But yeah, if we're talking upwards of $0.80 per mile, I think that compensation still covers the capital costs, full cost of operating the car, and probably non-fare mileage as well. More so the higher the rate of fare miles to non-fare miles. Even more so if we assume the driver would own a late-model car regardless. And for all I know the $0.52 rate the IRS calculates takes into account capital costs.

    The main issue I see is whether the base fare and per-minute fare, plus whatever is left of the mileage rate, is sufficient compensation. I have serious concerns with how Uber compensates their drivers, it's just the the contractor model, and specifically shifting the overhead to the driver, is not necessarily among them. I'm skeptical that we'd see significantly better net compensation for drivers if Uber eliminated the per-mile rate and instead paid them a per-hour (or per-fare-hour) rate and base rate, and reimbursed for overhead.

    Uber needs to be brought to heel in terms of requiring reasonable insurance coverage and the like, but it is a fantastic demonstration that the taxi market was broken before. As an example, in London, it takes an average of 34 months of geographic training to pass the knowledge portion of the medallion requirements. A great requirement in 1900, a ridiculous farce in 2015. As advanced as navigation as getting, we're already at the point where any year now, even expert humans will be so much less effective than satellite navigation as to be entirely obsolete at that portion of the task.

    Basically this. I'm not a "fan" of Uber per se, I just hated the existing taxi industry in every market I've lived in enough that Uber (despite all its flaws) is fucking amazing in comparison. I'd happily pay an extra $1 or $2 per ride to increase driver compensation, same way I'd happily pay an extra $2 for my shoes or $50 for my iPhone so that the workers that made it didn't have to endure medieval conditions, or pay an extra $0.50 for my Big Mac so that the guy making it can afford to take his girlfriend out once in a while (and, you know, shelter). Unfortunately I'm not often given that option. As it was the traditional taxi system wasn't often giving me that option. It was the option of waiting half an hour for a cab that smells like raw asshole to take me a roundabout route then pretend like his card reader is broken and insist on cash. And no real option, because taxi services (and livery services) were often tightly regulated and that guy with his asshole-mobile and "totally broken" card reader was protected from any and all competition.

    I don't take Uber because it's cheaper. And in many cases it's not that much cheaper. I take Uber because it's not fucking terrible. I'd happily pay more for a similarly not-terrible service with better regulation and driver compensation. I will not happily be reduced to the previous status quo.

    Unfortunately race-to-the-bottom is what we do in this country. This isn't a taxi/Uber problem, it's an everything problem. There's nothing uniquely awful about Uber in that regard, that's the same problem we have with everything from fast food to airlines to videogame development.

  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    I use uber. A lot.

    A 20-30 minute uberX ride home from midtown that is about 10 miles away costs me 35-40 bucks.

    In this instance, the driver earned well above minimum wage. Well above most wages for unskilled labor.

    Also, each fare in NYC is a minimum of 8 dollars regardless of distance. If someone drives you 2 blocks or less than a mile, you are still paying 8 bucks.

    Not defending uber, just giving some real world numbers here.

    There are more uber drivers in NYC than there are yellow cabs now, and the only thing that seems to be suffering for it is the value of the medallions, and seriously fuck that racket - it is worse than anything uber has done in this city.

    Seattle rates are fairly low. As of this year, it's $1.10 per mile, $0.20 per minute, and a $1.25 base fare. I believe the minimum fare has been dropped from $8 to $4 here as well. Obviously Uber's cut comes out of that as well.

    The real question is how that impacts driver earnings. At lower rates, it's entirely possible to book more trips per hour (and possibly more fare-miles versus non-fare-miles). The mileage rate will scale up as more rides are booked, so that overhead is still compensated. So you wind up with more fare-minutes versus non-fare-minutes per hour, and probably a net increase in profit per hour logged in. This depends on the market not being saturated, though...if demand isn't increasing at the lower price, then yeah that comes out of driver profits.

    It's also shady that this happens as the minimum wage in Seattle goes up...again, I'm skeptical that an average Uber driver is easily clearing that after expenses. Though they may be.

    But for a ride from, say, Westlake to Greenlake you're looking at a a $9 or $10 fare, of which the driver is collecting $7.50 to $8, for a 10-15 minute ride. That's based on actual Seattle rates, distance, and travel times per Google Maps (right now)...these aren't made-up numbers. Even assuming it cost him $0.52 per mile to operate the vehicle (so $2.70), that means he's clearing $5 for the trip, and he can probably book three such trips per hour. Or more shorter trips within downtown, Capitol Hill, etc. Again, I'm skeptical that a driver can consistently clear the $15 minimum (in Seattle) on average, but it's not entirely unlikely.

    So all we're really seeing is that Uber drivers are compensated on par with other unskilled labor when taken hourly. Which is shitty, but exactly what they'd get if they were being paid by the hour from an unregulated livery service that provided the car.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    I use uber. A lot.

    A 20-30 minute uberX ride home from midtown that is about 10 miles away costs me 35-40 bucks.

    In this instance, the driver earned well above minimum wage. Well above most wages for unskilled labor.

    Also, each fare in NYC is a minimum of 8 dollars regardless of distance. If someone drives you 2 blocks or less than a mile, you are still paying 8 bucks.

    Not defending uber, just giving some real world numbers here.

    There are more uber drivers in NYC than there are yellow cabs now, and the only thing that seems to be suffering for it is the value of the medallions, and seriously fuck that racket - it is worse than anything uber has done in this city.

    This is not correct.

    Or, rather, this analysis does not make any sense because you are not considering dead time between fares. Which you can't actually know for this specific driver.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Daimar wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Astale wrote: »
    For years those 'larger companies' have used those regulations as a way to make it difficult for competition to enter the field.

    They don't want to remove them.

    They really should be removed though. Regulation as a way to stifle competition is a bullshit strategy that infests far too many markets.

    Well, they would probably be happy to remove the regulations on fares, insurance, inspections, etc -- the same regulations Uber happily ignores.

    But if they did remove the regulations, they are better positioned than small and independent services to adapt. As they are if things like medallion restrictions are removed.

    You would basically see the same thing you see in every other industry that deregulates - a few very large companies forcing the smaller ones out of business due to economies of scale and unethical business practices as well as higher prices and lower service overall once the competition is forced out or swallowed up.

    Sure, you'll have upstarts here and there, but most of them will be doomed to fail or operate in a niche that just isn't lucrative enough for the bigger corporations to bother with.

    It all depends on the barriers to entry. In a capital intensive industry like power generation for example it is hard for the little guys to get involved in a deregulated market but for a livery service all you need is a car, which while it isn't trivial, is much easier for a small operation to afford, especially if the dispatching function is handled by an app. Yes, R&M and other operating costs will be cheaper for the large company but it can't be eliminated or trivialized and there are also costs that a fleet taxi company will have that an Uber/Lyft operator won't have since they don't have to have a permanent garage with its utilities and property tax or an invoicing department, managers, etc. In effect, a lot of the burden of doing business is handled by Uber corporate since that kind of thing can't be downloaded onto a contractor, and since it is centralized it will see some pretty good economies of scale itself.

    But that was the point.

    Uber works because it ignores the costs associated with regulation and offloads most of the rest of it's costs onto it's drivers.

    Absent those regulations all together, cab companies can easily compete on the first level and on the second corporations will be more efficient then individual cabbies. Uber might do better, but it's drivers would get their lunch eaten.

    You have to remember that the Uber is not the equivalent of a cab company. Uber + all it's "independent contractors" is.

    shryke on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    syndalis wrote: »
    I use uber. A lot.

    A 20-30 minute uberX ride home from midtown that is about 10 miles away costs me 35-40 bucks.

    In this instance, the driver earned well above minimum wage. Well above most wages for unskilled labor.

    Also, each fare in NYC is a minimum of 8 dollars regardless of distance. If someone drives you 2 blocks or less than a mile, you are still paying 8 bucks.

    Not defending uber, just giving some real world numbers here.

    There are more uber drivers in NYC than there are yellow cabs now, and the only thing that seems to be suffering for it is the value of the medallions, and seriously fuck that racket - it is worse than anything uber has done in this city.

    This is not correct.

    Or, rather, this analysis does not make any sense because you are not considering dead time between fares. Which you can't actually know for this specific driver.

    Very true. The question is whether it's reasonable to assume that, upon returning back to midtown, he can get another fare in a reasonable time. Because as-is? His operating cost was about $5, and he cleared $35 for that hour (assuming the return trip is 30 minutes, and there are no fares near synd's home).

    I'd be very curious to know "average" fares-per-hour and fare-minutes collected by drivers (the mileage I'd treat as a wash due to operating expense). But of course Uber doesn't provide that info as far as I know. So instead we hear rosy estimates from Uber (which are surely bullshit), as well as horror stories from drivers (which may or may not be typical). *shrug*

  • Options
    JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    Deregulation isn't bad when regulation is being used to enforce monopolies or oligopolies that are unaccountable to everyone. The reason Uber is doing so well is because the existing cab companies were shit, and the existing cab companies were shit because of a lack of actual market based competition.

    Uber is doing well because it is cheaper, and it is cheaper partly because it ignores regulations that cost them money.

    Unlicensed taxis aren't new, they have been there for ages. The only reason Uber is new is because of the app and their scale.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Deregulation isn't bad when regulation is being used to enforce monopolies or oligopolies that are unaccountable to everyone. The reason Uber is doing so well is because the existing cab companies were shit, and the existing cab companies were shit because of a lack of actual market based competition.

    Uber is doing well because it is cheaper, and it is cheaper partly because it ignores regulations that cost them money.

    Unlicensed taxis aren't new, they have been there for ages. The only reason Uber is new is because of the app and their scale.

    Yup. Uber is basically an marketing firm for unlicensed cabbies.

  • Options
    JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Let's keep in mind that Uber benefits strongly from the artificial scarcity that regulations and limits on the number of cabs in a city. This artificial scarcity keeps the price of livery service high enough that it can remain profitable, and - theoretically - it can remain high enough that an independent contractor can remain in business even when competing against larger corporate cab services.

    If everyone were to simply ignore regulations and laws on commercial livery services the way that Uber does, or those regulations and laws were lifted, you would have a race to the bottom, and the independent drivers aren't the ones that would benefit. The people that would benefit would be the large cab owning corporations that benefit from economies of scale, and can afford to take a very slim margin across their fleet.

    I don't think large cab companies benefit from economies of scale. Quite the opposite: the Uber app is vastly, vastly more efficient than traditional dispatch.

    The Uber app is more efficient than traditional dispatch, but there's no reason that the livery corporations couldn't make an app as well.

    A large cab company has a huge number of advantage over small independent cab companies or individuals (either running cabs or working for Uber). Fleet purchases and maintenance benefit massively from the economies of scale. As does wholesale fuel purchases. Insurance is another area where a large corporation has an advantage.

    In a race to the bottom, independent contractors won't be able to compete at the slim margins a larger corporation can compete at, and for obvious reasons a larger company is going to be less susceptible to market volatility. Having a car being repaired for a week isn't a big deal to Yellow, but for a five car garage it could easily put them in the red for a month or more.

    Now, if you remove the regulations on cab companies that go along with the market restrictions (those same regulations Uber loves to ignore) there's no reason cab companies can't imitate the 'surge pricing' model of Uber themselves and bump their profit margin up. After all, if you don't need a medallion, it becomes much easier to adjust your capacity and charge accordingly. And I guarantee you that the large corporations will have better models and analysis than independent drivers and small companies.

    Basically, the Uber business model is on borrowed time, and is currently successful on the backs of their drivers and restrictions on their competition. If the playing field were leveled, the established livery services would eat them for lunch - the Uber app is an easily imitated gimmick, not some groundbreaking disruptive technology.

    A union or co-op for drivers could have scale/fleet accounts at gas and maintenance chains without a huge corporate body.
    The uber drivers I know like it OK and make better money than they could at some other McJob. Their lives aren't some horror where the ZOMG COSTS OF DOING BUSINESS are shifted onerously onto them. They're not getting RICH IN THEIR SLEEP the way early uber marketing implied and some early uber drivers did in fact do, but they make WAY more than they would in food service or retail.

    RE the mileage deduction discussion from a page back, the overhead per mile on your taxes can be charged between fairs. So you're getting the .5x (it's been 50 and a little change for a while) a mile the whole shift, from leaving for your first pickup to getting home after your last drop off. With a fare in the car, you also get uber's cash mileage. So in reality, your mileage, carefully tracked, and real expenses, carefully tracked, can pretty much destroy your tax burden. The main cost an ... appdriver? needs to consider is faster annual depreciation on your vehicle, although if you wanted to form an LLC and get a business lease under it, you could probably write off the whole payment.

    Uber shows both the beauty and failing of libertarian experiment: If you're smart and game it, it can work great. If you're not, and don't, you could probably get ground up in it. The drivers I know are under-employed college graduates and standup comics, and it's been a great arrangement for them to enter with their eyes open.

    I can see the other side, though, where someone without that wherewithal went and got, say, an un-needed payment on a late model car thinking to monetize it and quickly realized just paying off the car ate a lot of fares.

    But that DEFINITELY happens with cab shields, too. Someone made the comment that if Uber is great, cabbies would be jumping ship, and one reason that's not true is because a lot of cab license transfers are financed in some DARK ways. Esp. by immigrants who often use shifty hawalla-style bankers and brokers as lenders who are MUCH WORSE in a dark alley than any entitled brat in the uber brass. We're talking actual human traffikers here in some cases, who will stack your debt forever, or pressure you to participate in money laundry or run "errands" for them. Those sudanese yellow cab drivers? They aren't living the lives of middle class union workers. This is not a cardholder vs scab debate in any real sense.

    There's a whole lot of grey here. But for me it boils down to: My uber rides are fast, direct, and usually fairly priced and the Uber driver never pretends to have a broken card reader and takes me to a shady ATM to get him cash. Is a 2 am surge 1oo percent "fair?" Hard to say, but a double or triple surge is STILL cheaper than a DUI at the end of the day.

    EDIT: Also, as a CDL holder, that training is almost totally irrelevant to urban cab driving and is much more about long haul freeway driving and heavy equipment. A few things would be relevant - and maybe in other states there are appropriate commercial licenses? But the stuff I had to take was mostly about driving large vehicles and drive time limits for long trips.

    JohnnyCache on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Let's keep in mind that Uber benefits strongly from the artificial scarcity that regulations and limits on the number of cabs in a city. This artificial scarcity keeps the price of livery service high enough that it can remain profitable, and - theoretically - it can remain high enough that an independent contractor can remain in business even when competing against larger corporate cab services.

    If everyone were to simply ignore regulations and laws on commercial livery services the way that Uber does, or those regulations and laws were lifted, you would have a race to the bottom, and the independent drivers aren't the ones that would benefit. The people that would benefit would be the large cab owning corporations that benefit from economies of scale, and can afford to take a very slim margin across their fleet.

    I don't think large cab companies benefit from economies of scale. Quite the opposite: the Uber app is vastly, vastly more efficient than traditional dispatch.

    The Uber app is more efficient than traditional dispatch, but there's no reason that the livery corporations couldn't make an app as well.

    A large cab company has a huge number of advantage over small independent cab companies or individuals (either running cabs or working for Uber). Fleet purchases and maintenance benefit massively from the economies of scale. As does wholesale fuel purchases. Insurance is another area where a large corporation has an advantage.

    In a race to the bottom, independent contractors won't be able to compete at the slim margins a larger corporation can compete at, and for obvious reasons a larger company is going to be less susceptible to market volatility. Having a car being repaired for a week isn't a big deal to Yellow, but for a five car garage it could easily put them in the red for a month or more.

    Now, if you remove the regulations on cab companies that go along with the market restrictions (those same regulations Uber loves to ignore) there's no reason cab companies can't imitate the 'surge pricing' model of Uber themselves and bump their profit margin up. After all, if you don't need a medallion, it becomes much easier to adjust your capacity and charge accordingly. And I guarantee you that the large corporations will have better models and analysis than independent drivers and small companies.

    Basically, the Uber business model is on borrowed time, and is currently successful on the backs of their drivers and restrictions on their competition. If the playing field were leveled, the established livery services would eat them for lunch - the Uber app is an easily imitated gimmick, not some groundbreaking disruptive technology.

    A union or co-op for drivers could have scale/fleet accounts at gas and maintenance chains without a huge corporate body.
    The uber drivers I know like it OK and make better money than they could at some other McJob. Their lives aren't some horror where the ZOMG COSTS OF DOING BUSINESS are shifted onerously onto them. They're not getting RICH IN THEIR SLEEP the way early uber marketing implied and some early uber drivers did in fact do, but they make WAY more than they would in food service or retail.

    But they are. It's just those costs aren't onerous enough to match your silly hyperbole. But they are most certainly have major sometimes hidden costs offloaded onto them.

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Once again, I'm going to point out how hypocritical the "broken card reader" argument comes across, since in the Uberfied world, anyone without a) a smartphone and b) access to a credit/debit card is SOL.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    Unlicensed mini-cabs are not a new thing. Uber just gives them an app.

    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • Options
    JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    shryke wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    zakkiel wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Let's keep in mind that Uber benefits strongly from the artificial scarcity that regulations and limits on the number of cabs in a city. This artificial scarcity keeps the price of livery service high enough that it can remain profitable, and - theoretically - it can remain high enough that an independent contractor can remain in business even when competing against larger corporate cab services.

    If everyone were to simply ignore regulations and laws on commercial livery services the way that Uber does, or those regulations and laws were lifted, you would have a race to the bottom, and the independent drivers aren't the ones that would benefit. The people that would benefit would be the large cab owning corporations that benefit from economies of scale, and can afford to take a very slim margin across their fleet.

    I don't think large cab companies benefit from economies of scale. Quite the opposite: the Uber app is vastly, vastly more efficient than traditional dispatch.

    The Uber app is more efficient than traditional dispatch, but there's no reason that the livery corporations couldn't make an app as well.

    A large cab company has a huge number of advantage over small independent cab companies or individuals (either running cabs or working for Uber). Fleet purchases and maintenance benefit massively from the economies of scale. As does wholesale fuel purchases. Insurance is another area where a large corporation has an advantage.

    In a race to the bottom, independent contractors won't be able to compete at the slim margins a larger corporation can compete at, and for obvious reasons a larger company is going to be less susceptible to market volatility. Having a car being repaired for a week isn't a big deal to Yellow, but for a five car garage it could easily put them in the red for a month or more.

    Now, if you remove the regulations on cab companies that go along with the market restrictions (those same regulations Uber loves to ignore) there's no reason cab companies can't imitate the 'surge pricing' model of Uber themselves and bump their profit margin up. After all, if you don't need a medallion, it becomes much easier to adjust your capacity and charge accordingly. And I guarantee you that the large corporations will have better models and analysis than independent drivers and small companies.

    Basically, the Uber business model is on borrowed time, and is currently successful on the backs of their drivers and restrictions on their competition. If the playing field were leveled, the established livery services would eat them for lunch - the Uber app is an easily imitated gimmick, not some groundbreaking disruptive technology.

    A union or co-op for drivers could have scale/fleet accounts at gas and maintenance chains without a huge corporate body.
    The uber drivers I know like it OK and make better money than they could at some other McJob. Their lives aren't some horror where the ZOMG COSTS OF DOING BUSINESS are shifted onerously onto them. They're not getting RICH IN THEIR SLEEP the way early uber marketing implied and some early uber drivers did in fact do, but they make WAY more than they would in food service or retail.

    But they are. It's just those costs aren't onerous enough to match your silly hyperbole. But they are most certainly have major sometimes hidden costs offloaded onto them.



    Uber drivers end up walking with an hourly in the high teens/mid 20s. If they track their expenses, they can significantly reduce their tax burden, to the point where it offsets much of the supposed "overhead" they are being saddled with. Key to this is the understanding that it is their personal car, which they would normally pay some amount to maintain, which amount would simply be loss, and it is the frequency of maintenance that is affected, not some binary amount of maintenance being switched from no to yes.

    If you drive 3000 miles for yourself, and get your oil changed and your tires rotated once and you eat that cost totally, vs if you drive 6000 for uber and for yourself over the same time period, and get your oil changed and tires rotated twice, and then write off several thousand dollars in tax liability, on top of compensation at wage, have you really lost in the net calculation?

    I have never been an uber driver (although I'm thinking about doing it part time) But I was a legal courier and process server for many years and by keeping a log book and choosing a car with good gas mileage and retained value, I essentially profited most of my maintenance costs on april 15 by using my own car.

    So if there's hyperbole in this thread, it's probably on the "anti" case, where teh poor oppressed uber drivers are literally being compared to miners at the company store - if that applies to ANYONE in this scenario, it's the guys who hawked their asses for yellow cab licenses many of whom are actual exploited persons, whose exploiters the high minded ITT seem to be sticking up for unbeknownst.

    I know lots of happy or at least satisfied actual uber drivers. Their experience and desire to keep their mode of employment must count for SOMETHING in the final tally - if you don't listen to the actual persons involved, you're just a merchant of umbrage at some level.

    JohnnyCache on
  • Options
    syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    Unlicensed mini-cabs are not a new thing. Uber just gives them an app.

    Half true.

    Unlicensensed mini cabs are not new, but a crowd sourced rating for the cabs, combined with a company that runs background checks and culls bad actors out of the service as they are discovered is new.

    This isn't the same thing as a guy hanging out outside a target or a bar asking if you need a cab ride home.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • Options
    JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Unlicensed mini-cabs are not a new thing. Uber just gives them an app.

    Half true.

    Unlicensensed mini cabs are not new, but a crowd sourced rating for the cabs, combined with a company that runs background checks and culls bad actors out of the service as they are discovered is new.

    This isn't the same thing as a guy hanging out outside a target or a bar asking if you need a cab ride home.

    It's really not the same thing as anything to date.

    It DOES have a ticking lifespan, though. If nothing else, the day when you get in your car and say "Siri, I'm drunk, let's go home" is maybe 20 years out at the outside.

  • Options
    syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Unlicensed mini-cabs are not a new thing. Uber just gives them an app.

    Half true.

    Unlicensensed mini cabs are not new, but a crowd sourced rating for the cabs, combined with a company that runs background checks and culls bad actors out of the service as they are discovered is new.

    This isn't the same thing as a guy hanging out outside a target or a bar asking if you need a cab ride home.

    It's really not the same thing as anything to date.

    It DOES have a ticking lifespan, though. If nothing else, the day when you get in your car and say "Siri, I'm drunk, let's go home" is maybe 20 years out at the outside.

    Supposedly uber is investing some of their money into driverless tech as well. Can't say I blame them.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Unlicensed mini-cabs are not a new thing. Uber just gives them an app.

    Half true.

    Unlicensensed mini cabs are not new, but a crowd sourced rating for the cabs, combined with a company that runs background checks and culls bad actors out of the service as they are discovered is new.

    This isn't the same thing as a guy hanging out outside a target or a bar asking if you need a cab ride home.

    It's really not the same thing as anything to date.

    It DOES have a ticking lifespan, though. If nothing else, the day when you get in your car and say "Siri, I'm drunk, let's go home" is maybe 20 years out at the outside.

    I wouldn't bet on it.

    The article explains how the Google tests are rigged (in short, Google has done an extensive, detailed mapping of Mountain View, giving the car a preloaded image of the terrain - a process that they admit is too inefficient to be usable for the country at large.) One of the more disturbing points is when the Google engineer says that their car would run a red light at an unmapped intersection, but that isn't a problem because it takes time for traffic signals to be built - to which the reporter says "you do know that mobile traffic signals exist, right?" (Even worse - the complete non-response to "so, what happens if a ball bounces out in front of the car?")

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Unlicensed mini-cabs are not a new thing. Uber just gives them an app.

    Half true.

    Unlicensensed mini cabs are not new, but a crowd sourced rating for the cabs, combined with a company that runs background checks and culls bad actors out of the service as they are discovered is new.

    This isn't the same thing as a guy hanging out outside a target or a bar asking if you need a cab ride home.

    It's really not the same thing as anything to date.

    It DOES have a ticking lifespan, though. If nothing else, the day when you get in your car and say "Siri, I'm drunk, let's go home" is maybe 20 years out at the outside.

    I wouldn't bet on it.

    The article explains how the Google tests are rigged (in short, Google has done an extensive, detailed mapping of Mountain View, giving the car a preloaded image of the terrain - a process that they admit is too inefficient to be usable for the country at large.) One of the more disturbing points is when the Google engineer says that their car would run a red light at an unmapped intersection, but that isn't a problem because it takes time for traffic signals to be built - to which the reporter says "you do know that mobile traffic signals exist, right?" (Even worse - the complete non-response to "so, what happens if a ball bounces out in front of the car?")

    You wouldn't bet that there will be fully autonomous cars in 20 years? Ten years ago the closest thing to such a beast was a car from Carnegie Mellon that managed to travel a whole 7 of the 150 miles of the DARPA course. Five years ago Google had just started testing autonomous driving on public roads. Now, Tesla has made its cars self-driving on highways with nothing more than a firmware upgrade; Nissan and Google have both announced plans to have commercial autonomous driving by 2020; Audi has announced that the A8 (next year!) will be self-driving on major roads, albeit at very limited speeds; and self-driving cars cross the country so routinely that hardly anyone bothers to note it anymore. Given that, do you have some substantial reason for thinking weather and traffic signals will remain insolvable problems for 20 years, or are you just being curmudgeonly?

    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • Options
    JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    syndalis wrote: »
    Unlicensed mini-cabs are not a new thing. Uber just gives them an app.

    Half true.

    Unlicensensed mini cabs are not new, but a crowd sourced rating for the cabs, combined with a company that runs background checks and culls bad actors out of the service as they are discovered is new.

    This isn't the same thing as a guy hanging out outside a target or a bar asking if you need a cab ride home.

    It's really not the same thing as anything to date.

    It DOES have a ticking lifespan, though. If nothing else, the day when you get in your car and say "Siri, I'm drunk, let's go home" is maybe 20 years out at the outside.

    I wouldn't bet on it.

    The article explains how the Google tests are rigged (in short, Google has done an extensive, detailed mapping of Mountain View, giving the car a preloaded image of the terrain - a process that they admit is too inefficient to be usable for the country at large.) One of the more disturbing points is when the Google engineer says that their car would run a red light at an unmapped intersection, but that isn't a problem because it takes time for traffic signals to be built - to which the reporter says "you do know that mobile traffic signals exist, right?" (Even worse - the complete non-response to "so, what happens if a ball bounces out in front of the car?")

    this computer has specs lower than your watch

  • Options
    AstaleAstale Registered User regular
    I don't think I'm ever going to be a fan of the "driverless car".

    I barely trust the humans out there during season. By the point robots would be advanced enough for me to not worry about them driving, I'd be packing away ammo for the great robot uprising.

  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And for all I know the $0.52 rate the IRS calculates takes into account capital costs.

    It does not. That would be under loan interest deductions. Not capital depreciation tables.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Deregulation isn't bad when regulation is being used to enforce monopolies or oligopolies that are unaccountable to everyone. The reason Uber is doing so well is because the existing cab companies were shit, and the existing cab companies were shit because of a lack of actual market based competition.

    Uber is doing well because it is cheaper, and it is cheaper partly because it ignores regulations that cost them money.

    Unlicensed taxis aren't new, they have been there for ages. The only reason Uber is new is because of the app and their scale.

    And as soon as cities/cab companies duplicate the app the only advantage then is that Uber skirts regulation.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    KiplingKipling Registered User regular
    I would be a fan of self-driving car in a limited sense. A feature where I can drive my work commute and the car can take over once it has seen it X amount of times would be amazing. A completely self-driving cars will take just one "my GPS told me to drive into the river" for problems to start.

    3DS Friends: 1693-1781-7023
  • Options
    programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    Astale wrote: »
    I don't think I'm ever going to be a fan of the "driverless car".

    I barely trust the humans out there during season. By the point robots would be advanced enough for me to not worry about them driving, I'd be packing away ammo for the great robot uprising.

    Driverless cars don't have to compete with the best humans, they need to compete with all humans, including the drunk driver with a suspended license. Driverless cars can kill 30,000 people a year and still be an improvement over human drivers (using America's 2013 numbers).

    The criteria for being better than humans isn't all that stringent.
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Deregulation isn't bad when regulation is being used to enforce monopolies or oligopolies that are unaccountable to everyone. The reason Uber is doing so well is because the existing cab companies were shit, and the existing cab companies were shit because of a lack of actual market based competition.

    Uber is doing well because it is cheaper, and it is cheaper partly because it ignores regulations that cost them money.

    Unlicensed taxis aren't new, they have been there for ages. The only reason Uber is new is because of the app and their scale.

    And as soon as cities/cab companies duplicate the app the only advantage then is that Uber skirts regulation.

    As soon as cab companies also become software developers? That's a really big "if."

    Besides, some of the benefit of Uber is they are skirting shitty regulations. Licensing systems are a mixed blessing in the most legitimate cases.

  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Deregulation isn't bad when regulation is being used to enforce monopolies or oligopolies that are unaccountable to everyone. The reason Uber is doing so well is because the existing cab companies were shit, and the existing cab companies were shit because of a lack of actual market based competition.

    Uber is doing well because it is cheaper, and it is cheaper partly because it ignores regulations that cost them money.

    Unlicensed taxis aren't new, they have been there for ages. The only reason Uber is new is because of the app and their scale.

    And as soon as cities/cab companies duplicate the app the only advantage then is that Uber skirts regulation.

    The only substantive "regulation" in question is the medallion system, which deliberately creates a shortage and then creates a privileged class that has the exclusive right to take advantage of that shortage.

  • Options
    zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Deregulation isn't bad when regulation is being used to enforce monopolies or oligopolies that are unaccountable to everyone. The reason Uber is doing so well is because the existing cab companies were shit, and the existing cab companies were shit because of a lack of actual market based competition.

    Uber is doing well because it is cheaper, and it is cheaper partly because it ignores regulations that cost them money.

    Unlicensed taxis aren't new, they have been there for ages. The only reason Uber is new is because of the app and their scale.

    And as soon as cities/cab companies duplicate the app the only advantage then is that Uber skirts regulation.

    The only substantive "regulation" in question is the medallion system, which deliberately creates a shortage and then creates a privileged class that has the exclusive right to take advantage of that shortage.

    I would say the regulations specifying the exact allowable fare taxis can charge are also kind of substantive.

    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    zakki wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Deregulation isn't bad when regulation is being used to enforce monopolies or oligopolies that are unaccountable to everyone. The reason Uber is doing so well is because the existing cab companies were shit, and the existing cab companies were shit because of a lack of actual market based competition.

    Uber is doing well because it is cheaper, and it is cheaper partly because it ignores regulations that cost them money.

    Unlicensed taxis aren't new, they have been there for ages. The only reason Uber is new is because of the app and their scale.

    And as soon as cities/cab companies duplicate the app the only advantage then is that Uber skirts regulation.

    The only substantive "regulation" in question is the medallion system, which deliberately creates a shortage and then creates a privileged class that has the exclusive right to take advantage of that shortage.

    I would say the regulations specifying the exact allowable fare taxis can charge are also kind of substantive.

    Those are only necessary because of the artificial shortage.

  • Options
    zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    Daedalus wrote: »
    zakki wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Deregulation isn't bad when regulation is being used to enforce monopolies or oligopolies that are unaccountable to everyone. The reason Uber is doing so well is because the existing cab companies were shit, and the existing cab companies were shit because of a lack of actual market based competition.

    Uber is doing well because it is cheaper, and it is cheaper partly because it ignores regulations that cost them money.

    Unlicensed taxis aren't new, they have been there for ages. The only reason Uber is new is because of the app and their scale.

    And as soon as cities/cab companies duplicate the app the only advantage then is that Uber skirts regulation.

    The only substantive "regulation" in question is the medallion system, which deliberately creates a shortage and then creates a privileged class that has the exclusive right to take advantage of that shortage.

    I would say the regulations specifying the exact allowable fare taxis can charge are also kind of substantive.

    Those are only necessary because of the artificial shortage.

    I don't agree - if you're in a strange city at night, especially if drunk, you are not in a good position to negotiate with a cab driver or notice if you're cheated. Also the system of cab numbers and so on was also kind of important for making sure people weren't abducted by their drivers. The current regulatory framework may be obsolete, but like any licensing process it did serve a purpose besides creating cartels.

    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Astale wrote: »
    I don't think I'm ever going to be a fan of the "driverless car".

    I barely trust the humans out there during season. By the point robots would be advanced enough for me to not worry about them driving, I'd be packing away ammo for the great robot uprising.

    Driverless cars don't have to compete with the best humans, they need to compete with all humans, including the drunk driver with a suspended license. Driverless cars can kill 30,000 people a year and still be an improvement over human drivers (using America's 2013 numbers).

    The criteria for being better than humans isn't all that stringent.
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Deregulation isn't bad when regulation is being used to enforce monopolies or oligopolies that are unaccountable to everyone. The reason Uber is doing so well is because the existing cab companies were shit, and the existing cab companies were shit because of a lack of actual market based competition.

    Uber is doing well because it is cheaper, and it is cheaper partly because it ignores regulations that cost them money.

    Unlicensed taxis aren't new, they have been there for ages. The only reason Uber is new is because of the app and their scale.

    And as soon as cities/cab companies duplicate the app the only advantage then is that Uber skirts regulation.

    As soon as cab companies also become software developers? That's a really big "if."

    Besides, some of the benefit of Uber is they are skirting shitty regulations. Licensing systems are a mixed blessing in the most legitimate cases.

    Can can companies not hire software developers? Is this one of the shitty regulations I am unaware of?

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Daedalus wrote: »
    zakki wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Deregulation isn't bad when regulation is being used to enforce monopolies or oligopolies that are unaccountable to everyone. The reason Uber is doing so well is because the existing cab companies were shit, and the existing cab companies were shit because of a lack of actual market based competition.

    Uber is doing well because it is cheaper, and it is cheaper partly because it ignores regulations that cost them money.

    Unlicensed taxis aren't new, they have been there for ages. The only reason Uber is new is because of the app and their scale.

    And as soon as cities/cab companies duplicate the app the only advantage then is that Uber skirts regulation.

    The only substantive "regulation" in question is the medallion system, which deliberately creates a shortage and then creates a privileged class that has the exclusive right to take advantage of that shortage.

    I would say the regulations specifying the exact allowable fare taxis can charge are also kind of substantive.

    Those are only necessary because of the artificial shortage.

    What?

    No, the set fare rates are so people don't get ripped off. Especially tourists.

  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    zakki wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Deregulation isn't bad when regulation is being used to enforce monopolies or oligopolies that are unaccountable to everyone. The reason Uber is doing so well is because the existing cab companies were shit, and the existing cab companies were shit because of a lack of actual market based competition.

    Uber is doing well because it is cheaper, and it is cheaper partly because it ignores regulations that cost them money.

    Unlicensed taxis aren't new, they have been there for ages. The only reason Uber is new is because of the app and their scale.

    And as soon as cities/cab companies duplicate the app the only advantage then is that Uber skirts regulation.

    The only substantive "regulation" in question is the medallion system, which deliberately creates a shortage and then creates a privileged class that has the exclusive right to take advantage of that shortage.

    I would say the regulations specifying the exact allowable fare taxis can charge are also kind of substantive.

    Those are only necessary because of the artificial shortage.

    What?

    No, the set fare rates are so people don't get ripped off. Especially tourists.

    No, the set fares are necessary because otherwise, in an artificial shortage, prices will rise until demand matches supply; this is literally Economics 101. Uber isn't ripping off customers; you're told your fare before you get in the car. Even their critics in this thread acknowledge that Uber is better for the customers, they're alleging that uber is worse for drivers.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Daedalus wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    zakki wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Deregulation isn't bad when regulation is being used to enforce monopolies or oligopolies that are unaccountable to everyone. The reason Uber is doing so well is because the existing cab companies were shit, and the existing cab companies were shit because of a lack of actual market based competition.

    Uber is doing well because it is cheaper, and it is cheaper partly because it ignores regulations that cost them money.

    Unlicensed taxis aren't new, they have been there for ages. The only reason Uber is new is because of the app and their scale.

    And as soon as cities/cab companies duplicate the app the only advantage then is that Uber skirts regulation.

    The only substantive "regulation" in question is the medallion system, which deliberately creates a shortage and then creates a privileged class that has the exclusive right to take advantage of that shortage.

    I would say the regulations specifying the exact allowable fare taxis can charge are also kind of substantive.

    Those are only necessary because of the artificial shortage.

    What?

    No, the set fare rates are so people don't get ripped off. Especially tourists.

    No, the set fares are necessary because otherwise, in an artificial shortage, prices will rise until demand matches supply; this is literally Economics 101. Uber isn't ripping off customers; you're told your fare before you get in the car. Even their critics in this thread acknowledge that Uber is better for the customers, they're alleging that uber is worse for drivers.

    No. The rates are set so that you don't get ripped off. They literally tell you this. That's why many places they have to slap a sticker on in the back seat that says "These are what the fares are. This is exactly what they should charge. Do not pay more then this."

    This isn't Economics 101 because it's not economics that's enforcing the set fares, it's politics. Your whole argument here makes no sense and has no basis in reality. Arguing it's economics when it's set by policy is just arblegarble.

  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    zakki wrote: »
    Daedalus wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Deregulation isn't bad when regulation is being used to enforce monopolies or oligopolies that are unaccountable to everyone. The reason Uber is doing so well is because the existing cab companies were shit, and the existing cab companies were shit because of a lack of actual market based competition.

    Uber is doing well because it is cheaper, and it is cheaper partly because it ignores regulations that cost them money.

    Unlicensed taxis aren't new, they have been there for ages. The only reason Uber is new is because of the app and their scale.

    And as soon as cities/cab companies duplicate the app the only advantage then is that Uber skirts regulation.

    The only substantive "regulation" in question is the medallion system, which deliberately creates a shortage and then creates a privileged class that has the exclusive right to take advantage of that shortage.

    I would say the regulations specifying the exact allowable fare taxis can charge are also kind of substantive.

    Those are only necessary because of the artificial shortage.

    What?

    No, the set fare rates are so people don't get ripped off. Especially tourists.

    No, the set fares are necessary because otherwise, in an artificial shortage, prices will rise until demand matches supply; this is literally Economics 101. Uber isn't ripping off customers; you're told your fare before you get in the car. Even their critics in this thread acknowledge that Uber is better for the customers, they're alleging that uber is worse for drivers.

    No. The rates are set so that you don't get ripped off. They literally tell you this. That's why many places they have to slap a sticker on in the back seat that says "These are what the fares are. This is exactly what they should charge. Do not pay more then this."

    This isn't Economics 101 because it's not economics that's enforcing the set fares, it's politics. Your whole argument here makes no sense and has no basis in reality. Arguing it's economics when it's set by policy is just arblegarble.

    The basic laws of supply and demand don't go away just because of a city council regulation. The medallion system creates a shortage; that's the whole point of the system. This causes prices to rise, because that's what shortages always do. So then another regulation is needed to get prices back down. They'll say it's to prevent "price gouging", and maybe they'll even believe it. So now the customer's chance of getting some of the short supply of taxis is random (well, sorta random -- unlike with Uber, there's no real penalty for a medallion cab deciding that a hail is too black to pick up, for instance). This is what leaves enough room in the market for new services to come in.

  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    You're assuming a lot of stuff not in evidence. Just because there is an enforced price doesn't mean that that price is below equilibrium. (Nor would a shortage plus enforced lower prices be particularly damaging to consumers or benefitting to medallion owners so pick your argument with regards to that)

    Enforced prices are largely to keep people from being bilked. Unregulated cabs have a long history of upcharging after you get in. Its especially prevalent with inebriated and foreign passengers who don't know how to say no. It's there to give passengers a defense from paying an unfair charge and to provide a base for fare disputes.

    You know how every travel brochure says "agree to a price before you leave" well that is why there are enforced prices.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    You're assuming a lot of stuff not in evidence. Just because there is an enforced price doesn't mean that that price is below equilibrium. (Nor would a shortage plus enforced lower prices be particularly damaging to consumers or benefitting to medallion owners so pick your argument with regards to that)

    Enforced prices are largely to keep people from being bilked. Unregulated cabs have a long history of upcharging after you get in. Its especially prevalent with inebriated and foreign passengers who don't know how to say no. It's there to give passengers a defense from paying an unfair charge and to provide a base for fare disputes.

    You know how every travel brochure says "agree to a price before you leave" well that is why there are enforced prices.

    It's also why one of the most common set prices is for trips to and from the airport. Tourists are one of the easiest groups to rip off.

  • Options
    Panda4YouPanda4You Registered User regular
    Kipling wrote: »
    I would be a fan of self-driving car in a limited sense. A feature where I can drive my work commute and the car can take over once it has seen it X amount of times would be amazing. A completely self-driving cars will take just one "my GPS told me to drive into the river" for problems to start.
    Those problems exists as is. :) Drivers running off bridges closed for repairs because "just following the gps" aren't unheard of.

Sign In or Register to comment.