4 ms·

I talked to an Uber driver who said he previously drove a cab for 15 years (in NYC). His biggest complaint was the medallion rental fee, it comes out to over $1

by ploxiln 11y ago

I talked to an Uber driver who said he previously drove a cab for 15 years (in NYC). His biggest complaint was the medallion rental fee, it comes out to over $100 per day (around $150 at peak I think?), even when you're sick or you want to take a vacation. You just can't, you can't afford it. He shared a cab with a rented medallion with a friend, they would each do a shift each day. One week there was some serious engine trouble, and the cab was in the shop for a week, neither of them could drive it. He called the medallion owner to ask for leniency, and was told that if he wanted, the medallion would be removed and he would be out of a job. Otherwise he can continue paying over $100 per day. Apparently the accounting with uber doesn't penalize you to the same degree when you need to take a day off, even with car payments and such for maintaining a nicer car.

jsjohnst 11y ago
This isn't true in the usual case, they don't usually pay unless they drive except in the weekly case (and are paying lower per day cost). Most companies charge about $125/day or $500ish/week. If they do the day rate, they get paid the same day for CC transactions (unlike cities like SF which take comparatively forever). Yes, this is still seemingly high cost, but when you consider the medallions cost $600k (which is down from the million plus pre Uber) and the fact that drivers don't own the car and also don't pay wear and tear on it, it's not so crazy. I take Ubers and cabs every day and usually talk to the drivers about their experience if they are friendly. Both systems have their ups and downs and I can assure you neither has the interests of the driver in mind. It's simply up to the driver to decide which of the two evils hurts them less.
- greggyb 11y ago
  Why is it not so crazy to pay $600K for an item of no value, simply to be allowed to provide a service? It is not a credential, so it can't be compared to the cost of a degree or similar in other fields. It is not and has never been awarded based on merit. The first were given to those who happened to be taxi drivers/owners at a time when taxi service providers when the same convinced the municipal government to limit their competition.
  - paulmd 11y ago
    It costs money because it's a durable capital expense that generates revenue, and can later be sold for as much or more than you initially paid. Now as to why have medallions - taxis cause congestion, and a lot of it. You drive your privately owned car to work and park it, a taxi keeps circling the block all day and pulls to the curb to pick up fares. A single taxi causes as much congestion as 40 private cars [1] - and New York is notorious for gridlock already. You gotta limit congestion somehow, and it makes sense to limit the most congestion-causing vehicles first. And when you're talking about a limited revenue-generating asset then the price spirals upwards. I personally think medallions should be auctioned on a yearly basis or something, to minimize the financialization. [1] http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/20/more-taxis-mean-more-traffic/ http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/20/more-taxis-...
    - greggyb 11y ago
      It is not a capital expense in the same way that a vehicle is. It is physically impossible to offer taxi service without a vehicle. It is merely illegal to offer certain types of taxi services in some areas without a medallion. I am asking why a medallion is reasonable in the first place, a question we wouldn't have to address regarding a vehicle. As to congestion, that is a post hoc justification of medallions that were intensely lobbied for by taxi companies as an anti-competitive measure.
      - paulmd 11y ago
        Would you say that pollution allocations (eg SO2 or CO2 credits) are also not a capital asset? I mean sure, you can buy them and sell them or take out an option against their future value. But you could just break the law and pollute without one perfectly fine. I fundamentally disagree with that assertion. Legal compliance is just as valid a consideration as physical necessity. Just because you can dump toxic waste in the river doesn't mean that should be the baseline behavior. Congestion is basically a form of pollution - pollution of our traffic system. The existence of taxi medallions is no more or less valid than the existence of liquor licenses. Societies regulate things that they deem to have negative externalities, film at 11. It doesn't matter that they have roots that you dislike (eg prohibitionism), what matters is the role we assign them in the present time.

by ploxiln 11y ago

jsjohnst 11y ago

This isn't true in the usual case, they don't usually pay unless they drive except in the weekly case (and are paying lower per day cost). Most companies charge about $125/day or $500ish/week. If they do the day rate, they get paid the same day for CC transactions (unlike cities like SF which take comparatively forever). Yes, this is still seemingly high cost, but when you consider the medallions cost $600k (which is down from the million plus pre Uber) and the fact that drivers don't own the car and also don't pay wear and tear on it, it's not so crazy. I take Ubers and cabs every day and usually talk to the drivers about their experience if they are friendly. Both systems have their ups and downs and I can assure you neither has the interests of the driver in mind. It's simply up to the driver to decide which of the two evils hurts them less.

greggyb 11y ago
Why is it not so crazy to pay $600K for an item of no value, simply to be allowed to provide a service? It is not a credential, so it can't be compared to the cost of a degree or similar in other fields. It is not and has never been awarded based on merit. The first were given to those who happened to be taxi drivers/owners at a time when taxi service providers when the same convinced the municipal government to limit their competition.
- paulmd 11y ago
  It costs money because it's a durable capital expense that generates revenue, and can later be sold for as much or more than you initially paid. Now as to why have medallions - taxis cause congestion, and a lot of it. You drive your privately owned car to work and park it, a taxi keeps circling the block all day and pulls to the curb to pick up fares. A single taxi causes as much congestion as 40 private cars [1] - and New York is notorious for gridlock already. You gotta limit congestion somehow, and it makes sense to limit the most congestion-causing vehicles first. And when you're talking about a limited revenue-generating asset then the price spirals upwards. I personally think medallions should be auctioned on a yearly basis or something, to minimize the financialization. [1] http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/20/more-taxis-mean-more-traffic/ http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/01/20/more-taxis-...
  - greggyb 11y ago
    It is not a capital expense in the same way that a vehicle is. It is physically impossible to offer taxi service without a vehicle. It is merely illegal to offer certain types of taxi services in some areas without a medallion. I am asking why a medallion is reasonable in the first place, a question we wouldn't have to address regarding a vehicle. As to congestion, that is a post hoc justification of medallions that were intensely lobbied for by taxi companies as an anti-competitive measure.
    - paulmd 11y ago
      Would you say that pollution allocations (eg SO2 or CO2 credits) are also not a capital asset? I mean sure, you can buy them and sell them or take out an option against their future value. But you could just break the law and pollute without one perfectly fine. I fundamentally disagree with that assertion. Legal compliance is just as valid a consideration as physical necessity. Just because you can dump toxic waste in the river doesn't mean that should be the baseline behavior. Congestion is basically a form of pollution - pollution of our traffic system. The existence of taxi medallions is no more or less valid than the existence of liquor licenses. Societies regulate things that they deem to have negative externalities, film at 11. It doesn't matter that they have roots that you dislike (eg prohibitionism), what matters is the role we assign them in the present time.